I
received quite a few (好一些) e-mails
from readers regarding my column last week about traffic lights. They all
agreed that traffic lights do not give enough time for pedestrians to cross
busy roads. As I said last week, the traffic lights on Queen's Road Central at
the bottom of D'Aguilar Street give pedestrians only a few seconds to cross.
Vehicles are given over two minutes. This is preposterous (可笑的) (ridiculous, absurd). Why
should vehicles be considered more important than pedestrians? Vehicles pollute
the air. Pedestrians do not. Walking is healthy. But Transport officials bend
over backwards (阿諛奉承) to
make things easy for vehicles.
One reader pointed out that even the government's TV notices ask pedestrians to watch out for vehicles. Why don't the notices ask drivers to watch out for pedestrians? Vehicles can run over and kill pedestrians. Pedestrians cannot do that to vehicle drivers. I am sure most of you(大部份人), not just quite a few, would agree with this. Don't be confused (混淆) with the expression(表達) "quite a few." A few means several, or not many. But "quite a few" means many, or more than just a few, but not too many ! The expression "bend over backwards" means to try very hard to please others.
Assistant Transport Commissioner Leung Tak-fai also e-mailed me about last week's column. He admitted (承認) his department had only increased the pedestrian green light during the lunch rush hour from 13 seconds to 23 seconds but not the evening rush hour following my column last May. He said the evening rush hour green light has now also been increased to 23 seconds. But why didn't he do that last May too? Why did he have to wait till I wrote another column? It is common sense that if the green light doesn't last long enough for pedestrians during the lunch hour, it also doesn't last long enough for them during the evening rush hour. As I explained before, the expression "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys" means if you pay a low salary you can only hire stupid people. Hong Kong government officials are not paid peanuts but they don't even know how to use their common sense.
***
自我上星期在專欄中寫過有關交通燈的問題後，便收到好些（quite a few）讀者的電郵。他們都認同，交通燈的時間根本不夠行人橫過繁忙的街道。我上星期提及，皇后大道中近德己立街交界的燈位，只給行人幾秒鐘過馬路，汽車卻有足足兩分鐘的時間。這是十分可笑的（preposterous）。為甚麼汽車會比行人重要？汽車污染空氣，行人卻不會。走路也很健康。但運輸署的官員卻百般討好（bend over backwards）駕車人士，讓他們路路暢通。
一位讀者指出，即使政府的電視宣傳片也會叫行人留心汽車。為甚麼他們不提醒司機留心行人？汽車可以撞斃路人，但行人卻不能危害到駕車人士。我肯定你們大部份人，而不只是好一些人（quite a few），都會認同我的說法。請不要混淆quite a few這個習語。a few指有些，或不多；但quite a few則解很多，或比「有些」為多，但又不是非常多！習語bend over backwards解作阿諛奉承。
運輸署助理署長梁德輝也寄了封電郵給我，回應上星期的專欄。他承認自五月的專欄刊出後，他的部門只將午膳繁忙時間的行人綠燈，由十三秒加至二十三秒。他說現在傍晚時份的綠燈，也會增加至二十三秒。但為甚麼他五月的時候不這樣做？為甚麼他非要等到我寫另一篇專欄的時候才動手？如果午膳時間的行人綠燈不夠時間，傍晚時份都一定不夠，這是常識嘛！我以往也曾解釋過，習語if you pay peanuts you get monkeys的意思是，你付低薪，只能聘請到蠢人。香港政府官員可不是支「花生」般的低薪，卻連常識都欠奉。
中譯:七刻
Michael Chugani 褚簡寧
One reader pointed out that even the government's TV notices ask pedestrians to watch out for vehicles. Why don't the notices ask drivers to watch out for pedestrians? Vehicles can run over and kill pedestrians. Pedestrians cannot do that to vehicle drivers. I am sure most of you(大部份人), not just quite a few, would agree with this. Don't be confused (混淆) with the expression(表達) "quite a few." A few means several, or not many. But "quite a few" means many, or more than just a few, but not too many ! The expression "bend over backwards" means to try very hard to please others.
Assistant Transport Commissioner Leung Tak-fai also e-mailed me about last week's column. He admitted (承認) his department had only increased the pedestrian green light during the lunch rush hour from 13 seconds to 23 seconds but not the evening rush hour following my column last May. He said the evening rush hour green light has now also been increased to 23 seconds. But why didn't he do that last May too? Why did he have to wait till I wrote another column? It is common sense that if the green light doesn't last long enough for pedestrians during the lunch hour, it also doesn't last long enough for them during the evening rush hour. As I explained before, the expression "if you pay peanuts you get monkeys" means if you pay a low salary you can only hire stupid people. Hong Kong government officials are not paid peanuts but they don't even know how to use their common sense.
***
自我上星期在專欄中寫過有關交通燈的問題後，便收到好些（quite a few）讀者的電郵。他們都認同，交通燈的時間根本不夠行人橫過繁忙的街道。我上星期提及，皇后大道中近德己立街交界的燈位，只給行人幾秒鐘過馬路，汽車卻有足足兩分鐘的時間。這是十分可笑的（preposterous）。為甚麼汽車會比行人重要？汽車污染空氣，行人卻不會。走路也很健康。但運輸署的官員卻百般討好（bend over backwards）駕車人士，讓他們路路暢通。
一位讀者指出，即使政府的電視宣傳片也會叫行人留心汽車。為甚麼他們不提醒司機留心行人？汽車可以撞斃路人，但行人卻不能危害到駕車人士。我肯定你們大部份人，而不只是好一些人（quite a few），都會認同我的說法。請不要混淆quite a few這個習語。a few指有些，或不多；但quite a few則解很多，或比「有些」為多，但又不是非常多！習語bend over backwards解作阿諛奉承。
運輸署助理署長梁德輝也寄了封電郵給我，回應上星期的專欄。他承認自五月的專欄刊出後，他的部門只將午膳繁忙時間的行人綠燈，由十三秒加至二十三秒。他說現在傍晚時份的綠燈，也會增加至二十三秒。但為甚麼他五月的時候不這樣做？為甚麼他非要等到我寫另一篇專欄的時候才動手？如果午膳時間的行人綠燈不夠時間，傍晚時份都一定不夠，這是常識嘛！我以往也曾解釋過，習語if you pay peanuts you get monkeys的意思是，你付低薪，只能聘請到蠢人。香港政府官員可不是支「花生」般的低薪，卻連常識都欠奉。
中譯:七刻
Michael Chugani 褚簡寧
沒有留言:
張貼留言