「senseless violence 」如何翻譯理解為妥？關於恐怖襲擊的不同英文官方表述有何政治意義？
手機提問，請幫忙添加新聞背景。感謝。
@美國駐華大使館在3月2日 21:50發布了這樣的微博美國譴責這一可怕且毫無意義的在昆明的暴力行為。我們向死難者的家人表示哀悼，並向所有被這場悲劇殃及的人們致以慰問。
「毫無意義的在昆明的暴力行為」引起了較大爭議，但也有人認為這是「senseless violence」的中譯，並無不妥。
先聲明：1. 這件事情無論怎麼講，是美方做的不對；2. 美方真實態度我無從得知，也不在本回答的範疇內，我僅從字面來解讀美使館的微博。
首先我承認沒有看到該微博譴責的英文原文，但是根據以往經驗來看，「可怕且毫無意義的在昆明的暴力行為」的英文原文應該是
"horrible and senseless acts of violence in Kunming"。
如果事後證明他們用的詞不是senseless，歡迎來打臉，我認了。
但是我有信心原文八九不離十，去google一下"condemn senseless
violence"就知道這幾乎是標準的譴責模板，舉幾個例子：
奧巴馬譴責美國駐利比亞大使被殺是"senseless violence"
President Obama on Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in
Libya
美國譴責2013年5月在英國發生的針對退役軍人的李·里格比謀殺案
US condemns "senseless violence" in London attack
"We stand with our UK allies in the face of such senseless
violence."
歐盟譴責2004馬德里火車爆炸案（死亡191人，傷1800人）是 ferocious
and senseless
senseless這個詞如果簡單的翻譯成中文，的確是有可能譯成「無意義的」，但是在中文語境下，很容易引起誤會——你說這是無意義的暴力，那麼就是說換種方式也許就是有意義的暴力了？
但是結合前兩則例子就知道不是這樣，美國總不可能認為自己的大使被殺害也存在「有意義」的方式吧？
實際上在這個語境下，senseless強調的是不可能取得任何效果的殺戮，「不可能取得任何效果」，也並非建議暴徒換種方式，而是說你們希望通過暴行想要達到的目的是不會得逞的。
所以這個詞在簡單的翻譯到中文時，就被悲劇的誤讀了，實際上如果翻譯敏感些，可以把senseless
violence譯成「愚蠢的暴行」，因為senseless在這個語境里就有foolish的意思
另外一點大家會覺得美國用「暴力行為」這個詞程度太輕，前面說了，美國對針對本國和英國的襲擊也用violence，並非厚此薄彼；同樣，翻譯如果中文稍好點，把「暴力行為」改成「暴行」就會讓中文讀者更容易接受。
至於為什麼美國沒有將其作為「恐怖襲擊」來譴責，這的確是可商榷的地方。我的理解是他們準備譴責的措辭時，未必能確定這究竟是一起背後含有政治動機的恐怖襲擊，還是一起大規模的刑事案件。對美國來說，恐怖襲擊並不是以死亡人數多少來判定的，譬如2007年的弗吉尼亞理工大學校園槍擊案，死亡人數33人，但事後並未被定性為恐怖襲擊。當然，會不會是出於政治考量，不敢說沒有。
但是無論怎樣，這則發言的原本態度，是譴責暴行，對遇難人員表示深切哀悼，我相信英文原文是沒有什麼問題的，而且在這種針對平民進行殘忍殺戮的大是大非上，美國沒理由還想用言語刺激中國。
我只能說一則草率的翻譯招致數萬人的憤怒，實在是很悲劇的事情，而且主要責任在美方；一來翻譯馬虎缺乏斟酌，二來這條微博從昨晚到現在引來幾萬條批評（不少抨擊來自平時滿親美的ID），可到現在居然連後續解釋和澄清都沒有。
-
「不問是不是，就問為什麼，統統都在耍流氓。」——知乎箴言我覺得大家預設的前提似乎並不一定成立。
誰說美使館用的詞語就一定是senseless violence？
或者退一萬步來說，誰見過美國使館所發表微博的英文原文？
反正我沒有見過。不但沒有見過，我在美國國務院網站也沒有見到在北京時間3月2日晚上9點之前，美國政府官方對於本事件的任何英文表態。誰見到了可以給個鏈接，除英文和中文外的語言也可，謝謝！U.S. Department of State Search那麼回到題目來，如題所述，美使館所發的微博是在3月2日晚上9點使用中文在新浪微博發布的。
既然是中文發布的，那麼我們自然可以，也應當按照中文的語言習慣來理解這條微博，不是么？
那麼按照中文的理解，將發生在昆明的駭人聽聞的恐怖事件，稱之為毫無意義，這無意是對每一個受害者，每一個因恐怖行徑而深受影響的人的又一次侵害。
不是么？
即使懷著最大的善意去揣測發布這條微博者的心理和行為，那也只能理解為美國人的中文水平太差，而不是中國人的英文水平太差。
-我寫了一篇博客說這個事情，希望對討論有所貢獻。http://changguohua.com/archives/get-rid-of-the-senseless-senseless-violence.html
It』s said that English as a language is more logic and accurate than Chinese. But I always argue that it』s not the languages but the people who use them that make them appear so. Actually, languages are by definition not so logic and accurate as some people seem to think. They are used by people and illogic and inaccurate things can very easily happen, even to a great writer and an experienced translator.
Let』s take a look at an excerpt from Conan Doyle』s The Hound of the Baskervilles. In the beginning of Chapter 11 「The Man on the Tor」, it reads:
I start them from the day which succeeded that upon which I had established two facts of great importance, the one that Mrs. Laura Lyons of Coombe Tracey had written to Sir Charles Baskerville and made an appointment with him at the very place and hour that he met his death, the other that the lurking man upon the moor was to be found among the stone huts upon the hillside.
The part in bold type means that Mrs. Laura Lyons made arrangements for meeting Sir Charles Baskerville on a day that happened to be or was made to coincide witha fateful one. It did not imply that he or she was in any way aware of his horrible end. However, in a translation by Li Jiazhen 李家真, the translator seems to say that the bone-chilling murder was also part of the arrangements by the innocent Lyons and the two people were both aware of it, which are of course not the case:
在前一天我了解到兩個非常重要的事實，一個是庫姆比崔西的勞拉·萊昂斯太太曾經給查爾斯·巴斯克維爾爵士寫過信，並約定在他死去的那個地點和時間相見；另一個就是潛藏在沼地里的那個人，可以在山坡上的石頭房子中找到。
This is a little confusing for readers of Holmes』s stories who are generally good at reading between the lines. Confusion will not occur if the translation is changed to:
……並約好見面的地點和時間，與查爾斯·巴斯克維爾爵士的死亡地點和時間恰好吻合……
If this is a translator』s pardonable mistake, Conan Doyle as a writer has his own share of contribution to the illogicality and inaccuracy of language. In The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge, he wrote:
「This is very painful–very painful and terrible,」 said Mr. Scott Eccles in a querulous voice, 「but it is really uncommonly hard upon me. I had nothing to do with my host going off upon a nocturnal excursion and meeting so sad an end. How do I come to be mixed up with the case?」
「Very simply, sir,」 Inspector Baynes answered. 「The only document found in the pocket of the deceased was a letter from you saying that you would be with him on the night of his [Mr. Aloysius Garcia] death. It was the envelope of this letter which gave us the dead man』s name and address. It was after nine this morning when we reached his house and found neither you nor anyone else inside it. I wired to Mr. Gregson to run you down in London while I examined Wisteria Lodge. Then I came into town, joined Mr. Gregson, and here we are.」
Of course, the letter did not say 「the night of Garcia』s death」 and only said that Scott Eccles would be with him 「on that night」.
My observations here seem arguably nitpicking, but it certainly points to people』s tendency to use languages not so logically and accurately.
Another example was the recent response of the U.S. embassy to China to the atrocities committed on the night of March 1, 2014 in Kunming, Yunnan by some well-trained, knife-wielding, and uniformed Uighur terrorists in black from China』s Xinjiang region.
The original text in Chinese is reproduced here:
美國譴責這一可怕且毫無意義的在昆明的暴力行為。我們向死難者的家人表示哀悼，並向所有被這場悲劇殃及的人們致以慰問。
The first sentence (in bold above) caused uproar and strong protests among visitors to the embassy』s Sina Weibo page.
It』s insulting for many of them to find the U.S. embassy still calculating whether the atrocities have 意義 when they』ve already found the indiscriminate killings so ugly and bloody. The embassy seems to say that there is alternatively sensible and legitimate violence that could have happened to the defenseless civilians. What makes it worse is that the embassy conspicuously shows its unwillingness to call the violence acts of terrorism. This angers the visitors who have good reasons to think the U.S. government has all along condoned and subsidized the terrorist and separatist groups in Xinjiang and Tibet.
The first sentence of the Embassy』s post should obviously be a (badly done) translation from something that reads like this:
The United States condemns this horrible and senseless violence in Kunming.
Not surprisingly, another translator was quick to notice that the American president himself with his Administration uses 「senseless violence」 to describe the killings suffered by his own people and his Western allies. Nile Gardiner, a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst and political commentator, thinks that the President believing that terrorism being now a 「diminishing threat」 hesitates to call them acts of terrorism.
The translator said:
#Senseless Violence#關於@美國駐華大使館 的昆明恐怖事件聲明，很多人應該是誤讀了。下面是兩個例子，一個是針對美國駐利比亞大使遇襲的，一個是針對倫敦恐怖襲擊的，不妨看看。
「Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.」 – Remarks by the President on the Deaths of U.S. Embassy Staff in Libya
「The United States condemns today』s attack in the Woolwich district of London. We stand with our UK allies in the face of such senseless violence. Our thoughts and condolence are with the family of the victim and the British people.」 – Statement by Patrick Ventrell, acting deputy spokesperson
… and said:
關於#senseless violence#，對於不理解的人，你們永遠有不理解的理由。的確，我舉的例子是公職人員和軍人，讓你感到偏頗。現在再給一個例子：在2012桑迪胡克小學26人遇難槍擊案（20名兒童，6名教職人員）中，白宮用的也是『horrific, senseless violence』，鏈接第二段，自己看：http://t.cn/8Fdgfuy
「It』s been 33 days since the nation』s heart was broken by the horrific, senseless violencethat took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School — 20 — 20 beautiful first-graders gunned down in a place that』s supposed to be their second sanctuary. Six members of the staff killed trying to save those children. It』s literally been hard for the nation to comprehend, hard for the nation to fathom.」 - Remarks by the President and the Vice President on Gun Violence
But even the U.S. government』s sanction of this expression is not a surefire guarantee that everyone is eager to buy it, as Gardiner makes it clear. And Jed Lewison wonders where the President picked up such a 「disgusting and offensive」 expression and seems to have traced the origin:
It』s simply unacceptable for an American president to describe things like genocide or terrorist attacks on diplomats as 「senseless violence.」 We need to get to the bottom of this, and quickly. We need to know where President Obama learned this disgusting and offensive rhetoric so we can put an end to it. Fortunately, Google has our answer: President Obama』s thought crime was inspired by some guy named Ronald Reagan.
「Those who perished as a result of Nazi terror, millions of individual men and women and children whose lives were taken so senselessly, must never be forgotten.」 —Ronald Reagan, February 2, 1983
The intended meaning of 「senseless violence」 is and its soundness builds on the premise that no violence is sensible. But the interpreted meaning of 「senseless violence」 can be that there is another category of violence that does make sense. A sensitive brain can easily make of the expression in this way and the ones in China are not alone.
Pat Archbold, who introduces himself at his blog as co-founder of Creative Minority Report, a Catholic website, said:
When I hear these phrases 「senseless violence」 and 「senseless tragedy」 I immediately think of circumstances in which they might be appropriate. When a tornado devastates a small Midwest town calling it a 「senseless tragedy」 seems appropriate. Likewise, when some person with obvious mental illness opens indiscriminate fire on an unsuspecting crowd, calling the act 「senseless violence」 seems appropriate as the culprit who perpetrated the violence had no logical end.
That is the crux of it, I think. When death ensues from something indiscriminate, whether tornado or mental illness, it can properly be called senseless. It is something that cannot be helped. These things just happen and we cannot make sense of them.
However, when violence is planned and or committed with a specific purpose in mind, it is the exact opposite of senseless and to pretend otherwise is reckless.
A rudimentary entry of Wikipedia』s about 「senseless violence」 traces the origin of the expression and also takes note of its controversial use:
The term is often criticized because it seems to say that the violence which is not categorized as senseless is legitimate. Also, it is difficult, if not impossible, to define what constitutes 「senseless violence」. Others point out that the term is or can be misused by right wing politicians who strive for more repressive measures against crimes.
These examples are revealing about the ambiguous nature of human languages and we can be very sure that there are many.
謝邀
翻譯部分我不回答，我只答政治意義部分。
簡單回答：用senseless violence是不妥的，但是不直接用terrorist attack也是可以理解的。
展開來說：
首先為什麼說senseless violence是不妥的。因為它本身就是一個很有爭議的說法——senseless的violence是負面表達的話，難道不senseless的violence就可以接受嗎？這個說法本身就不太合適，容易激起聽者的反感——你想，人家家人被砍死了，你去跟人講說這幫暴徒的暴行實在是senseless啊，那不管你的翻譯準不準確，哪怕受害人家屬本身就是講英語的，估計也要跟你急。為什麼說不直接使用terrorist attack是可以理解的呢？
關鍵是美國官方還不好給這個事情定性。9/11之後，「恐怖襲擊」這個詞在美國官方的語境裡面就是非常敏感的，官方的發言裡面，有沒有用到「恐怖襲擊」、和具體的表達方式，是能引發很大爭議的。
有多敏感呢？比如美國駐班加西使館被襲擊之後，奧巴馬在白宮的演講裡面提到這個事情是「act of terror」，已經是說的很直白了。但是還是被批判了很久——「你為什麼不說班加西的事情是terrorist attack？白宮是不是不認為大使被弄死這麼嚴重的事情是恐怖襲擊？」
這個事情還被羅姆尼在總統選舉辯論的時候拿出來說事——「班加西使館被恐怖分子打了，你作為總統怎麼不管這個事情叫terrorist attack？」你們看，摳字眼摳成這樣。但是即使這麼敏感，官方還是不會立刻就使用「恐怖襲擊」這個字眼的，比如後來的波士頓馬拉松爆炸案，奧巴馬第一時間說辭也不是說恐怖襲擊，之後等到調查深入並且有更多信息後，才使用了「act of terrorism」的說法：Obama has learned tough lessons on using the word "terror"
現在的情況和波士頓事發後很類似，嫌犯的信息不能確定。大陸官方可能有信息，但是沒放出來，所以哪怕外界推測的和真實情況八九不離十，白宮還是不會願意直接用terrorist attack這個說法的——用個senselss violence最多被吐吐口水，太早給事件定性，萬一定錯了那問題就要大多了。本來寫了一段，結果小編不讓過，那我就發圖唄
非要說這不是恐怖襲擊，要麼是瞎子，要麼是別有用心。
我打賭原詞用的是senseless violence。因為這種錯誤經常在媒體上看到，以前在譯言甚至wsj中文版上就看到很多人這麼翻譯，出來原文的味道都沒了。如果列出來最容易被曲解的翻譯一定有這個詞。這個用詞基本上標準的外交辭令，在沒有拿到美國政府定性的事件對於外交官或者政府發言人都會用這麼一個詞來說。而且這次措辭其實也蠻強硬的了。前面也有人提到了，美國對國內很多槍擊案和他國的民間暴力行為經常使用這個詞。senseless這個詞的意思並不是經常表示「毫無意義」，如果在很多語境裡面看到按照詞的後綴都會這麼認為，和meaningless其實很像，多數時候表達的意思是「愚蠢」、「愚昧」。我覺得比較適合的翻譯是「愚昧無知的暴行」。所以這完全是一個翻譯上的失敗。
MW上senseless的第一個釋義是done or happening for no reason舉例為senseless acts of violence 如果是senseless acts of violence那麼直譯是「無端的暴行」或者「無緣無故的暴行」PS：沒找到美方發表評論的英文原文
好吧，既然看到大家的答案中提到了這樣一些看法
1. 「翻譯的失敗」2. 對倫敦那次也用的是「senseless"那麼我就把當時每日電訊報對於Obama使用"senseless"的看法貼個鏈接Obama administration calls London terror attack "senseless violence"大家可以看看當時英國人是怎麼回應這個單詞的同意 @謝熊貓君關於senseless violence的政治意義的說法客觀的說，外交無小事，在沒有得到第一手確鑿證據的情況下，外交辭令趨於保守也無可厚非，在一些敏感的政治問題上，使用模糊語言常常可以起到掩飾或迴避的作用，參見：@英國駐華使館 3.2的微博
Hugo Swire：「 Shocked to hear of serious knife attack in Kunming China. Thoughts with those injured and families of those killed."
英國外交部國務大臣Hugo Swire：「聽到中國昆明發生的嚴重的砍人事件我非常震驚。我的心與那些受害人及他們的家屬們同在。」
但美國駐華使館的微博是用中文發出的，即便考慮到有可能是從英文直譯過來的這種可能，這個直面中國廣大網民的官方微博確實沒能照顧到中國人民的感受，哪怕譯為說成發生在昆明的喪心病狂的暴行也要好很多呀，何況，這條微博背後是否真有這麼一段原始的英文依然不可考。
事實上，美帝在senseless violence這個外交辭彙上已飽受病垢，包括美國本土人民，甚至鬧到了2012總統大選的政治辯論上。ARGUMENTSenselessWhy does President Barack Obama refuse to call the killing of our Libyan ambassador "murder"?
SHARE +1 SHARES
- BY NEWT GINGRICH , JOHN A. MCCALLUM
- SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
- FREEDOM
- U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
- BARACK OBAMA
- MIDDLE EAST
This past week, the United States commemorated the 11th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. With those memories fresh in our mind we were confronted with the news that our sovereign embassy in Egypt and consulate in Libya were attacked on the very day of one of America"s greatest tragedies.
The morning following the attack, President Barack Obama made aremarkable statement that has gone largely unexamined. Buried within his initial comments, Obama said the following: "While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants."
The president"s statement is remarkable for both the sequence of the thoughts expressed and the careful wording of the remarks. Why does the president feel the obligation to soothe the feelings of the offended religious groups in the context of expressing condolences to the families of the individuals who have been killed?
There is no moral equivalency between an alleged offense to religious sensibility and the murder of a U.S. diplomat. Our sovereign embassy and consulate were attacked on the anniversary of 9/11, and a U.S. ambassador and several staff members were executed. Neither the United States nor its diplomatic staff had anything to do with the alleged religious insult, and our outrage at the actions of the murderers should trump any effort to placate a religious insult committed by an amateurish film.
While the sequencing of the president"s thoughts is concerning, his remarks are more troubling when one pauses to examine how carefully they were worded. If one reads his comments more closely, the president does not actually condemn anyone for the ambassador"s murder -- nor does he even call it "murder." The president blames the attack on the ambiguous and impersonal notion of "senseless violence" that somehow "took the lives" of our countrymen. Whom is Obama talking to? Does he believe that the American people accept the fact that the murder of an ambassador, a Foreign Service officer, and two U.S. security personnel on the anniversary of 9/11 were merely acts of "senseless violence"?
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the following statement shortly after the president"s: "We condemn in the strongest terms this senseless act of violence, and we send our prayers to the families, friends, and colleagues of those we"ve lost."
There it is again. The culprit in this tragedy is not a radical terrorist ideology that seeks to harm America, but instead the soft, ambiguousvillain of "senseless violence." The use of this phrase by both the president and secretary of state is not accidental -- it"s a reflection of the unwillingness of the administration to name our enemies.
It is important to understand the context of how we have arrived at the current crossroads.
Obama undertook a world peace tour before he was elected, and we were assured that his rhetorical skills would convince radicals of various stripes to lay down their arms -- North Korea, Iran, Libya, Syria, and the like. President George W. Bush was, after all, a warmonger. Obama would be able to persuade Pyongyang and Tehran to abandon their nuclear ambitions once he was able to convince them that he appreciated the fact that it was U.S. aggression that had forced these countries to acquire such weapons in the first place.
Has the president"s rhetoric convinced these regimes to abandon their weapons programs?
After he was elected, the president traveled to Cairo and delivered a speech to the Muslim world to persuade them that he understood the oppression of "colonialism" and the ill will that colonial policies had created around the globe. In the liberal mind, the United States was complicit in colonialism; in fact, we are the chief purveyors of the post-colonial oppression that continues to this day. The president has gone to great lengths to empathize with the hardships experienced by religious groups that we have supposedly played a role in oppressing. His administration then celebrated as radical elements swept through Egypt and toppled an American ally. It is now clear that the Arab Spring was largely a revolt against the West and, at its core, against America.
Has the president"s empathy placated the aspirations of the radicals?
In nearly four years as president, he has made two trips to the Middle East and has not once visited Israel -- America"s most loyal ally in the region. On the contrary, the president has gone to great lengths to snub Israeli leaders at a time when Iran continues to threaten Israel with extinction. As late as this week, the White House indicated that the president is too busy to meet with the Israeli prime minister when he visits the United States in late September. I suppose an attack on Israel will be considered another act of "senseless violence."
The president"s reluctance to promote and project our values around the world is undoubtedly translated by both friends and foes as an admission that America lacks moral authority and is at least partially responsible for global injustice.
We should not be ashamed of our values -- chief among them freedom of speech. For over two centuries, America has been a force for an expansion of human rights, women"s rights, and religious rights around the globe. When our president appears confused about our own history, or worse yet embarrassed by it, then we are weakened and the world becomes a much more dangerous place.
This week we grieve the deaths of our ambassador and members of his diplomatic staff. Our sovereign embassy and consulate have been breached. Peace through strength has evolved into appeasement through apology. America and the world are likely to experience continued acts of senseless violence until the president obtains moral clarity about the fact that his own nation is not obligated to console our enemies
相比之下，英國大使館官方微博所說的knife attack 砍人事件就相對中立，雖說沒帶任何感情色彩的直述看起來有點無情無義，但至少不會產生因毫無意義的暴力行為這種說辭所帶來的各種歧義和聯想。
理性的看一下美國領事館這條微博，這條以中文發布的微博雖然看上去似乎很有外交辭令的意味，但難以對憤慨的中國人民起到任何表達同情的作用，讓人不禁產生各種想法的這些表述方式是否帶有各種雙重標的准意味也為未可知。回頭看，奧巴馬也是在米榮妮攻擊兩周後才說是act of terror，姑且可以認為是外交上有措辭不當會得罪利比亞的顧慮，但是，稱此次板上釘釘已被政府定性的事件為暴力恐怖襲擊難道也是害怕得罪誰嗎？我也未能免俗的在猜測是不是在暗地裡支持誰？CNN的新聞China train station killings described as a terrorist attack
Senseless: (Especially of violent or wasteful action) without discernible meaning or purpose.
我覺得這個詞很準確地蔑視了恐怖分子。我想這是美使館的意思。
至於是否英文翻譯過來的……「毫無意義」 這個詞也很好地蔑視了恐怖分子用他們的生命換來的無意義的暴行，對他們所追求的理想、教義是毫無幫助，是無果的。
這件事的重點其實並不在這四個字上。新浪微博將這條微博很便捷地推送到了每個新浪微博用戶的手機里。這種推送是不可退訂的。也就是說，我是被強迫看到這條消息的。
並且它附帶一個疑問句：「你怎麼看？」
新浪微博，我告訴你我怎麼看。你只不過在高喊：「臣新浪接旨！～」
你才不管什麼中文英文呢，先誤導了再說。
本人長期居住在倫敦，也是個多次被恐怖襲擊過的地方。Senseless 這種詞常聽到，沒什麼不妥。「毫無意義」 這種詞無疑也是譴責匪徒的。
如果你有另一種想法，well，何患無辭。
謝@聞佳 邀。不光是昆明，這問題在美國在9.11之後有過爭議。民權團體激烈批評政府和媒體使用 T-word 太濫太輕易。現在的謹慎，是那次爭議的結果。北京猿人當然永遠不會理解文明社會的尺度。做出判斷最有用的可能是兩種態度：一種是「多講道理，少挾憤怒」，另一種是「己所不欲，勿施於人」。轉載財新文章一篇，大家參考！恐怖分子為何加引號
【財新網】（駐倫敦記者 倪偉峰 記者 張翃）昆明火車站襲擊事件，舉國沉痛。幾十條無辜生命的消逝、上百人的鮮血，任何心存人道者都不可能漠視。就在中國人沉痛之際，小小的引號似乎又從大洋彼岸帶來了傷害。
襲擊事件發生後，中國讀者很快發現，英語媒體在報道該事件時，將犯案的「恐怖分子」（terrorist）一詞打上了引號。《人民日報》在3月3日發表文章《十足的虛偽與冷酷》，痛批CNN、美聯社、《紐約時報》、《華盛頓郵報》等西方媒體的報道「陰陽怪氣、邏輯混亂，甚至別有用心地挑撥離間」。
這些報道被認為「陰陽怪氣」的一個原因，大概是覺得使用引號表示並不真心認可事件是「恐怖主義襲擊」。連這樣兇殘地濫殺無辜平民都不承認是恐怖主義，你們到底在想什麼呢？——會這麼想的人可能不在少數。
那麼，美英媒體是不是專門避談中國遭受的「恐怖主義」呢？
「彆扭」的《紐約時報》
2月24日，伊拉克發生一起爆炸事件，38人喪生，50多人受傷，《紐約時報》報道里沒有任何一個地方出現「恐怖主義」或「恐怖分子」，只有「自殺性投彈者」（suicide bomber）、「武裝分子」（militant）。
2月19日，黎巴嫩貝魯特發生爆炸襲擊。該報報道亦通篇未用「恐怖分子」相稱，而是說「襲擊者」（attacker）。
2月11日，巴基斯坦白沙瓦一家電影院發生手榴彈爆炸，11人喪生，25人受傷。該報的相關報道也未使用「恐怖」或「恐怖分子」等辭彙。
這麼說來，是不是美國媒體對發生在別國的恐怖活動都刻意地淡化呢？我們來找找美國國內的例子。
2012年9月11日，美國在班加西的大使館遭襲，導致美國大使和另一名外交官喪生。但直到9月20日，美國政府才正式用「恐怖主義襲擊」來描述這件事。
於是，直到20日前，《紐約時報》報道都不能用「恐怖襲擊」這個詞，只好反覆地使用 「致命襲擊」（deadly attack）這個缺乏感情色彩的短語。
而直到兩年後，美國國務院才決定正式對與該事件有關的兩個利比亞組織和個人，定性為「恐怖分子」。
要讓《紐約時報》放心大膽使用「恐怖分子」一詞來報道某事，必須滿足兩種條件中的一種：有組織宣布對襲擊事件負責，而該組織已經被官方定性為恐怖組織；要麼是它信任的官方機構定性。否則這個詞在文章中只能出自別人之口——也就是加上引號。
2013年4月的波士頓馬拉松爆炸案大家可能還仍記憶猶新。4月15日爆炸當天，《紐約時報》也在通篇報道中避免直接使用「恐怖主義」一詞，並特別指出，總統奧巴馬在演講中沒有用「恐怖主義」一詞。
恐怖分子的定性可不是一句話的事。一旦定性，美國就可以採取法律行動，包括凍結被定性為恐怖主義的個人和組織的資產，以及禁止美國公民與這些組織或個人開展商業活動。
此次昆明遭襲後，美國駐華大使館在發布的第一份聲明中，只好用了這麼彆扭的說法：「可怕且毫無意義的暴力行為」——起草聲明的人真是辛苦。
在3月3日的記者會上，美國國務院發言人普薩基（Jen Psaki）也是在中國記者的追問下，才勉強擠出了「恐怖主義」一詞，還加了不少限定： 「基於中國媒體報道的信息」，「表現為恐怖主義行動」。
即便是發言人認可，這也並不是美國的官方定性，因為如上所說，定性意味著法律後果。
「學術」的BBC
以報道公正、不偏不倚自居的英國廣播公司（BBC），專門針對類似「恐怖分子」（terrorist）和「恐怖主義」（terrorism）術語的使用做過專門解釋：
「關於怎樣才是『恐怖分子』或『恐怖行動』，並沒有共識。對於這個詞的使用往往包含價值判斷。」
「因此，我們在引用別人所說的話時，不應該更換『恐怖分子』這個詞，但我們自己應該避免使用這個詞。」
「這不意味著我們要避免傳達現實或是某一行為的恐怖實質，但是，我們應該考慮我們的措辭將如何影響我們做客觀新聞的聲譽。」
也就是說，BBC的記者不會在看到類似的襲擊後，發稿直接說「恐怖分子幹了什麼滔天罪行」，而是描述發生了什麼，並避免主動對作案人員定性。「因為『恐怖分子』這個詞本身就會成為理解的一種障礙，而非幫助。」BBC的新聞報道手冊上寫道，「我們應通過描述發生了什麼，向觀眾傳遞該舉動的全部後果。」
BBC因此也準備了一個辭彙表，供記者們在報道此類案件時使用： 爆炸者（bomber），襲擊者（attacker），槍手（gunman），綁匪（kidnapper），叛亂者（insurgent），武裝分子（militant）。「應當使用具體描述肇事者的詞語。」《編輯指南》中說。
這份編輯指南，不僅是BBC記者的學習材料，也被放在「BBC新聞學院」（BBC College of Journalism）網站上，供全球媒體人參考。
檢索一下BBC對波士頓馬拉松爆炸案的報道——咦，也有引號：《奧巴馬譴責「恐怖主義行為」》（Boston bombings: Obama condemns "act of terrorism" ）。文中用了個不痛不癢的說法「波士頓襲擊案」。
倒不是所有英語媒體或西方媒體都像《紐約時報》和BBC一樣「矯情」。英國的《金融時報》、《經濟學人》，美國的《時代》周刊等都直截了當地寫上了恐怖襲擊。
而《紐約時報》自己在報道去年底的俄羅斯伏爾加格勒爆炸案時，也在報道第一句就不加引號地寫下「恐怖襲擊」，不過並非是在第一時間的稿件中，而是在隨後補充的深度報道里。
引號爭議是不是小題大做？每個人可能有自己的判斷。對全球媒體的讀者來說，做出判斷最有用的可能是兩種態度：一種是「多講道理，少挾憤怒」，另一種是「己所不欲，勿施於人」。
一、翻譯不當；二、外交辭令；三、用詞合適；四、非英語原創；五、意圖明顯。
這好事必須是翻譯乾的啊，老美只不過把過去安全用過100+N遍的表態口徑翻出來改了改。有興趣的知友可以翻查下老美對世界各地沒有定性為恐怖主義的殺戮行為的表態。都是坐辦公室的，誰還沒個模板啊，尤其外交表態的事可不是隨便發揮創造力的時候。
Senseless在這裡表達的是「慘無人道的濫殺無辜」的意味。是不是覺得我編得太多了？我有查的：
senseless - WordReference.com Dictionary of English第2個釋義lacking in feeling竊以為可以理解為「無感情，冷漠」，當然後面的unconscious抽了我的臉；
用經典的劍橋詞典吧senseless adjective (NO JUDGMENT)。竊以為用這個義項可以理解為不加判斷地濫殺，我自己都覺得有點牽強。但是事實是老美在報道國內惡性案件時也這麼用：
http://www.post-gazette.com/local/west/2014/02/18/Man-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-killing-one-wounding-another-at-a-North-Fayette-bar/stories/201402180183
Mindanao newsbits for March 2, 2014Family Mourns The Loss Of Norman Father, Killed In ShootingWidows and children grieve two men killed in Edmonton warehouse stabbing先舉這麼多吧，仔細讀下內容大家會發現，受害者會有共同特點——無冤無仇，光天化日，死相很慘——基於此我才大膽作出上述翻譯的假設。
對比一下，我遇難同胞倒也符合上述條件。
然而多數人想不到的是，維基百科上對Senseless Violence的解釋（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senseless_Violence）是：這竟然是從荷蘭人那裡抄過來的。詳情我不多說了，反正是荷比（看來盧還比較安定）近年的一系列暴力殺害無辜事件被定性為Senseless Violence，也有批評說沒定性為Senseless的暴力是不是就合法了等等。總之聯繫上文Senseless最初的定義，很懷疑現在的血腥性真的是從荷比這些惡性案件來的（待考）。
那麼為什麼美國這個英語為母語的國家要用這種外來詞呢？安全啊，我們法律用語里不是也有許多不是人話的辭彙？但是他絕對沒想到被小白翻譯成這麼不安全的中文。
我和 @李傾城 找到了同一個關於對英國士兵被當街砍殺和班加西美大使被殺表態意見的貼子，簡單介紹下內容以饗不願意讀英文的讀者吧，說英國士兵被當街分屍這件事美國的表態就是senseless violence，美國駐利比亞大使被殺的事表態還是senseless violence，作者很不爽。
這是為毛呢？不都是恐怖事件嗎？非也！利比亞那事美國一開始是不承認恐怖事件的，因為上頭定性說基地不行了，恐怖主義的日子一去不復返了。所以美國把英國的事件說成senseless violence就是不想把這紅果果的恐怖主義事件定性，免得自己受牽連。
美國對昆明事件使用同樣的辭彙 ，意義也就不言而喻了。＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝補充兩句：我在Quora上就此的提問回復不多，目前的答案基本與我的答案類似，除了說這個辭彙在日常事件的報道中Native很接受。This has become a common phrase used in these situations as conceptually dismissing the act because it seems purely based on feeling or emotional states, absent of logic. Hooligans at soccer matches have been said to incite riots with that process.
The problem becomes when these dynamics are used politically. Many times the political verbiage is left vague so it can be manipulated later. They are even more subject to twisting when the terms are cross cultural and cross lingual.
關於政治意義此君與 @謝熊貓君意見類似，我不再贅述：
This is not un-thought out, nor a spontainious, riotous event. It seems calculated to provoke outrage and bring awareness to their cause. They are using techniques now common in other parts of the world. Hit-and-run tactics.
Because the US is trying to champion civil rights and humanitarian concepts, it is troubled when they are trying to be diplomatic with what they see as the oppressive Chinese govenment. This turn of a phrase is also used to buy time as the situation develops.
如再有建設性回復我會更新。
關於senseless和meaningless的對比：另，這件事起源雖然是翻譯失誤，但如果出現外交糾紛是不該由譯員單獨承擔責任的。作為當今世界唯一的超級大國，官方喉舌管理不嚴謹，這是病，得治。You are right, "senseless violence" is a much better and more appropriate phrase. It means acts so brutal that the mind struggles to comprehend that a thinking person did them, not an animal or a dark force of nature.
"Meaningless" can be used to criticize something for having no purpose or not carrying the meaning it supposedly has. You might criticize a threat as meaningless, or even a war. "Meaningless violence" happens in video games. But a "meaningless death" is not something you would wish for anyone!
無端暴行
都別爭了，看看FP的一篇文章吧：
The "T-word"
裡面提到美國大使館的原文是「a senseless act of violence"
So, you are the judge.我真為知乎上有那麼多XX感到震驚居然在討論他們用的是什麼單詞，是什麼意思人家美國大使館就是用中文說的這句話好嗎，根本沒有英語原文好嗎你們以為人家和你們一樣不知道自己吃幾碗乾飯是嗎？人家就是明確的說：「這是毫無意義的，但是不一定是錯誤的。」
「慘無人道的暴力行徑」
一般來說，上升到國際關係的翻譯都是需要有政治考量的，既要從源語（英語）也要從目標語（中文）進行平行對比。這裡美駐華大使館的譯文是有尺度的考量，即我們所謂的「謹慎的外交風格」。
我們看聯合國曆年的會議，都會有成員國對因為一些個別詞語「無法理解」達不成協議，不歡而散。在一些成文法起草過程和最後拍板過程中，對一些詞語一城一池的爭奪也屢見不鮮，時常會召集締約國開會投票選詞，實際上這背後都是有利益的糾纏和訴求的。
時間比較少，下午還要去上課...具體扣詞的過程有時間的話在繼續展開吧，感興趣的順手抄起本詞典就能自己做做研究：）
以上個人拙見。搞得美國大使館請不起翻譯養不起帶路黨一樣。
你覺得大使館針對突發事件的官文和你800字中考作文一樣隨便寫寫得嗎？
不論用哪種語言，必然是字字斟酌句句考究，就連每個標點符號都是嚴重考慮之後的結果。
不要為「女神」洗了，我知道傷了你們的心。ds心態最沒救，親測。
譴責，繼續譴責
我才第一次知道senseless 竟可以翻成毫無意義的。senseless 不是 meaningless。要說毫無疑義，要接近一點的也說nonsensical (nonsense) 吧。sense 一般翻譯成理智，你看jane austen的sense and sensibility 是翻成理智與情感了吧。所以senseless最準確的翻譯應該是毫無理智的，喪失理智的。
means " it doesn"t make any sense.""it"s focking insane!"
推薦閱讀：
※如何看待老兵尹吉先的知乎專欄內容以及評論區的一些評論和回復？
※國外的政治問題可以有多敏感？
※如何看待日本首相安倍晉三將於26日上午參拜靖國神社？
※為什麼蘇格蘭獨立公投的有權投票人是蘇格蘭居民而非蘇格蘭人？
※發達國家對非洲國家提供的援助，是否真正會讓當地人民受益？