這個學生的電郵讓我越看越氣

我承認自己的修養還不夠好，因為我太在乎某些事了。自在忘憂的境界，我謹記在心，但目前似乎還是有點遙遠。

文字會說話。下面這個學生發來的電郵讓我看了一肚子氣。我按捺住，就事論事立刻給她回了，想不到她一副盛氣凌人的語氣又來了一封。我第二次回，除了講事理之外，也對她表達強烈的不滿。

我把電郵往返的順序按照閱讀的方便性加以重組，時間前的在上，後來的在下，當事人已作匿名處理。除了必要的排版微調之外，其他的悉以原文重現。

本來想好好跨個年的，這件事不講出來，心裡難受啊！

From: V
To: hugozeng
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:49 PM
Subject: I have something to say.

Dear professor:
“Probably”,“I can't really remember. ”and“I'm not very sure. ”I heard those phrases repeating over and over again by you in just 2 hours. I have learned“A little knowledge is a dangerous thing”And now you are teaching your students by telling them something that you can't even be positive of. You don’t think online dictionaries and Wiki were built for nothing, don’t you? Undoubtedly, it’s my job to find the further information of those vocabularies. But I am certain that proving what teacher had said in the class is authoritative is not on my agenda.
By the way, You translated “Stoic” into “逆來順受” which is more like a phrase to describe slavery system. And Abraham Lincoln will disapprove he had freed the people who were “Seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by pleasure or pain; impassive.”

V, a cynical sophomore.

From: hugozeng
To: V
Subject: Re: I have something to say.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:09:00 +0800

Dear V:

Thanks for your comments.

In response to your question about my translation of "stoic," please take a quick look at the following definitions from two well-known monolingual English learner's dictionaries:

(1) someone who does not show their emotions and does not complain when bad things happen to them (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 5th edition, 2009)

(2) a person who is able to suffer pain or trouble without complaining or showing what they are feeling (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 7th edition, 2005)

I don't agree with your interpretation of "逆來順受." According to《重編國語辭典修訂本》(R.O.C. Ministry of Education, retrieved December 29, 2009), this phrase means "以順從的態度接受惡劣環境或不合理待遇," which, if not synonymous with, is semantically close to "stoic." In spite of this, if you find a better alternative, please don't hesitate to let me know.

By the way, if you are looking for absolute answers, I'm afraid you're probably in the wrong class. There may be different answers to the same question, depending on how you approach it. Also, I am human, and I wasn't born omniscient. Sorry again.

You're being critical. And to be honest with you, it hurts. I'd appreciate it if you could do it otherwise.

Hugo

From: V
To: hugozeng
Sent: Tuesday, December 29, 2009 10:15 PM
Subject: RE: I have something to say.

Dear professor:
Maybe I didn't make my first paragraph clear enough. You introduce vocabularies and you often say you can't really remember or not be sure of the fundamental history information behind them. (This kind of situation happened at least 5 times yesterday. I got tired of counting them.) If you can't remember it, and why did you bring it up to confuse students? Writing down a few lines showed on the online dictionary pages on a scrap you could bring to class couldn't be that hard, right? I do appreciate that the information you provide. But it will be better if you don't provide the information with a few loopholes in it. It makes me start questioning your proficiency and authority.
To make you feel better, I was thrilled when I could read the New York Times articles without looking up for the words like jovial, behemoth and Sword of Damocles. And I am thankful for the whole stoic explanation. I am sorry and I shouldn't have come to the conclusion so fast.

V

下面是我最後回的：

Dear V:

In the first place, some etymologies can be unknown or obscure, some are controversial, and still some others are complex. Not every question deserves a quick and definite answer. The more you know, the humbler you feel.

I'm afraid you appear judgmental and patronizing. To be perfectly blunt, I find you rude, and I don't like it.

Hugo