Miss Mo：周融封英文信　我俾 C！

周融榮升新開張的HKG報行政總裁CEO，今日(12日)向facebook CEO 朱克伯格 (Mark Zuckerberg) 發公開信投訴其fb貼文被刪，但這封英文信卻被英文向來了得的立法會議員毛孟靜（Miss Mo）批評，英語用詞及行文均只屬「C級成績」。

周融的公開信投訴HKG 的facebook「開放廿四小時上傳的18篇帖子共有四篇被刪，佔整體22%」，要求解釋刪帖原因，但公開信一出，引起網民熱烈討論。

姑勿論大家是否同意投訴信內容是否言之成理，但若客觀地評論其英文水平，則周融可能有不少進步空間。TOPick編輯向英文了得的立法會議員毛孟靜（Miss Mo）請教。她指若以新聞碩士班學生的英文功課水平來評級，只會給予「Ｃ」！

她又形容以周融的ＣＥＯ身份寫信予也屬ＣＥＯ級數的朱克伯格 ，語氣及用字似「gibberish」，(即嘰哩咕嚕），左搭右搭的，「唔知講乜」。雖說是投訴信，但連基本交待事情及日期等也說不出清楚。

她又指，朱克伯格的秘書收到，看到這封信的文法及語調如此不正經，大有可能以為是「惡搞」：「丟去垃圾筒也不出奇。」

周融的英文書信水平可以如何改善？TOPick 編輯請教Miss Mo後，綜合以下5點：

1. 別似熟賣熟

Miss Mo指周融的公開信不論是寫給好朋友抑或陌生人，語調也不適當。舉例，周融以「Dear Mark」稱呼朱克伯格，是熟悉的朋友稱呼，但信件一開端就稱「You don’t know me」，極為矛盾。Miss Mo建議，應改為「Dear Mr Zuckerberg ,」並刪除「You don’t know me」。

2. 不符合CEO身份

毛孟靜指，整篇公開信的語調都不符合公文或公開信應有的正式語調。她指，周融既然以CEO身份撰寫公開信予Facebook的創辨人，信中應語調正式，當中不應該有「Well」這種嘻笑的口語字詞。

3. 術語太多太難明

毛孟靜指，周融在信中多次使用美式句子，例如「Hong Kong is deep in the throes of a political turmoil」，文法沒錯，但在美國人看來會較突兀。

4. 語句太誇張

語文作用是溝通，Miss Mo指，信件或對話以常用淺白英文為佳。她指周融的信件有部分語句語調誇張，例如「I cannot for the life of me believe the former is true.」，文法沒大錯誤，但用不著以「生命」來宣稱自己對事件如何難以置信。Miss Mo建議，可改為「I surly do not believe…」便可。

5. 太多不小心錯處

信中周融提到「雨傘運動Umbrella revolution」，作為名詞應該「U」及「R」都是大楷。毛孟靜指這些是不小心的錯誤。

終生學習是必須的，出錯難免，惟要用心多學習，才會改善。聽了Miss Mo的一番話，周融又會否再回信予Miss Mo請教呢？

周融的英文信寫的如何？大家又有什麼看法？大可再看看這封投訴信再作評價！

Dear Mark,

 

You don’t know me. My name is Robert Yung CHOW, a very small Facebook user from Hong Kong, and I would like to share with you our Facebook experience. We opened a Media/News/Publishing fan page called HKG Pao this month, and immediately strange things began to happen.

 

On the first day we opened our Page, Facebook deleted our first post after seven hours. Within the next two hours, two more posts were deleted, making it three on the first day. The following morning, the fourth post was deleted. We put up a total of 18 posts during the first 24 hours and four were deleted, a ratio of 22%. The deletions happened both in our front end (Timeline) and our backend (Insight).

 

Now one would think we must have done some pretty offensive stuff, like insults to religion, pornography or worst. I would like to give you a brief rundown of what were in the posts:

 

The first post deleted was a piece authored by me explaining why I decided to start the web media called HKG Pao. The 800 word article had already been published in a newspaper, and was posted in my own fan page, as well as shared by a few sites the day before. No problem there. The picture we used was one featuring my not too attractive face, and which was approved by Facebook for use as an ad, and it is still being run on Facebook.

 

The second post deleted was a financial analysis on a listed company which just announced a profit warning. The picture used consisted of images of the major shareholder (an important political figure) and the CEO. Nothing offensive there except it may not please the company and its management, but what financial analysis on a profit-warned company ever did.

 

The third post deleted was an announcement for a voting to select the most popular faces of a political movement. The accompanying picture contained images of about 13 people, just head and shoulder shots. Nothing indecent there.

 

The fourth post deleted was a published newspaper article and we poked fun at a student leader who became the nominal head of 90,000 college students in Hong Kong by getting just 37 votes. What democracy, we asked. The image used was the student’s head and shoulder shot at a press conference.

 

We reposted the four and are waiting to see if they will be deleted again.

 

I am first to admit that Hong Kong is deep in the throes of a political turmoil (we just survived 79 days of Occupy Central/Umbrella revolution). We belong to one camp fighting for universal suffrage to be introduced in 2017. The opposition feels that the current political package proposal is not good enough and wants it rejected. That’s the gist of our differences.

 

Well,  Hong Kong must be a tiny dot in your worldwide operation, and our insignificant fan page is no more than a speck in the Facebook universe, but since you and Facebook are all for communication,  I have therefore decided to directly communicate with you.

 

People are suggesting that four Facebook deletions of non-offensive material (our claim) in just 30 hours of a fan page’s existence must be something of a record. A few have even questioned if Facebook is taking a political stand in Hong Kong or someone working in Facebook was trying to satisfy a private political agenda. I cannot for the life of me believe the former is true.  As for the latter, I can offer no evidence except to say: heaven forbid.

 

That’s why I am bringing this to your attention. If we break any rules, and are punished for it, that’s fine and I’d accept it. But I imagine in this civilized age, the accused should be informed of his crimes before he is punished. If we incurred a lot of complaints, politically-inspired or otherwise, I suppose someone at Facebook would look at the evidence before applying the capital punishment, right? Well, did someone look?

 

Dear Mark, this is no request to go back to change the past. I am just humbly requesting you and Facebook to do what you think is the right thing going forward (that’s quoting you). I am not demanding anything, apology or whatever. Whether you will let me know what your finding is, I leave it to you and your team to decide. But getting an answer will be nice.

 

Like you said: I have calmed down, breathed and then typed you this e-mail. I do hope I will get a"We hear you. "

 

By the way, I cannot close without telling you Facebook is a great product and we intend to communicate through you a lot. I just hope we won’t be shut down by someone in Facebook next, and wondering why. Thank you, Mark, for hearing me out.

 

All the best,

 

Robert Yung CHOW

Chief Executive Officer

HKGpao.com Ltd

12th May,2015