Article One:

Iso-Ahala指出旅游动机可从社会学，和社会心理学两方面着手。在心理学上动机是产生行为的关键，外部的诱因和内在的驱力都可以影响动机。所以人们去旅游的真正原因是满足内心的心理需求，这是驱使人们旅游的动力。 个人参与休闲行为具有两个基本的动机特征，分别是逃脱（escape）和追求（seek）。这两种动机促使游客去旅游，去满足社会需求，和心理需求。


“寻”是指希望通过旅行的不同生活环境得到喜悦和满足。比如在新西兰生活的人，被法国的菜式所吸引，为了美食去旅游，在尝试不同于kiwi cuisine的法式大餐中得到了满足。比如去外地参加本地没有的冒险刺激的活动，从中得到快乐等等。

我认为iso的寻和逃动机模型与dann的推拉动机因素十分相似，其实逃离就是推力，追寻就是拉力。By this I mean，当人们有逃离原有生活的愿望，这就是一个推动旅游者出游的一个动力，而 目的地 具有的特质和吸引性，正是人们所寻求的在日常生活中得不到东西，这也是鼓励人们出游的动力。


Pearce在马斯洛的需要层次理论的基础上提出了休闲阶梯模型。旅游生涯阶梯帮助人们对maslow需要层次论在旅游动机中得到了更好的了解。他指出，人们必须先满足低层次的体验，才能依次提升到对高层次体验的需求，高层动机包含了底层的动机。旅游者因为旅游动机的不同，所处在的旅游层面也不同，随着旅游者年纪和经验的增长，他们对旅游也有更高的需求。相似的，他在leisure ladder model中也将旅游动机分为5个层次，由基础到高级的次序分别为1,2,3,4,5,。
从以上各位学者的分析中，因为Maslow的需求层次论不能单独存在于旅游 动中，Iso的淘和寻理论与dann的推拉理论很相似，所以我着重表达一下dann和pearce的观点。我认为可以把dann的推拉理论结合到 pearce的阶梯理论中。That is to say， 在pearce的每个阶层的旅游动机中都有推拉的因素包含在其中。比如说，在relationship needs中，就可以有推或者拉的动机。举例证明，一对结婚10年的夫妻，在结婚纪念日时决定去旅游。这个决定是为了促进感情，所以这是一个推动他们出行 的动机。在决定以旅游的方式增进感情后，他们开始寻找合适的旅游地点，可能是去他们蜜月旅行的地方故地重游，可能是去一些他们从未涉足的地方去享受一些新 奇的体验，这些都是外在因素拉动他们，促使他们决定去旅游的地点。这样把两个理论合并到一起，让旅游者行为动机更为清晰。


Iso Ahala pointed out that the analysis of motivation to travel could be carried out from 2 perspectives which are sociological perspective and socio-psychological perspective. In accordance with psychology, motivation is the key factor which generates behavior. External engendering factors and internal motivation factors are both able to impact upon motivation. Therefore the true reason why people go to travel is to satisfy the psychological needs from their heart, this is the motivating power which drives people to travel. There are two basic characters/motivations which motivate individual to participate leisure activities, they are to “escape” and to “seek”. These two types of motivational factors drive people to travel to satisfy social and psychological needs.

To “escape” refers to the desire to stay away from the daily environment. People are not satisfied with and anxious about the actual situations in their lives. After these kinds of feelings have been accumulated beyond a certain period of time, people then begin to have the desire to escape from their original life style, trying to find a new point of balancing in the leisure lives temporarily. For example, people would go to temple or shrine to worship should they experience problems or anxieties in their actual lives to gain psychological consolation/composure.

To “seek” is to hope to gain happiness and satisfaction through different living environment during traveling process. For example, people living in New Zealand have been attracted by French Cuisines and they then go to travel for enjoying delicious foods, trying to gain satisfaction of French Main courses which are different from Kiwi Cuisine. For example, people go to places which are not their usual place of abode for the purpose of participating adventurous activities that could not be found in their usual place of abode, to gain happiness.

I think the models of “to seek” and “to escape” proposed by ISO are very similar to the motivational factors which are “to push and to pull” proposed by DANN. In fact, to escape is to push and to seek is to pull. By this I mean, when people are having the desire to escape from their current lives, these are the motivating powers which encourage them to travel. Whereas, the destinations possess some special characteristics and attractions which are pursued by people and are not available to them in their daily lives. This is also the reason which encourages people to travel.

The “Theory of Hierarchy of needs” proposed by Maslow has also been frequently quoted by people to be adopted in the motivational theories. He has pointed out the needs of human beings varies with the alteration of status and role. These needs could be put into an ascending array from low to high level from 1,2,3,4,5.

Pearce has proposed the Stairs Model for Leisure activities based on the “Theory of Hierarchy of needs” proposed by Maslow. The “Staircase Theory of Traveling Careers” has assisted people to reach a better understanding of the hierarchy of needs in the motivation of traveling. He has pointed out that people have to firstly satisfy the needs located at lower levels, they could then sequentially begin to experience the needs of higher levels. Motivations located at higher levels cover motivations located at lower levels. Tourists will begin to have higher needs for travel by the increasing of ages and experience, based on difference among motivation for traveling and difference among various levels of traveling. Similarly, he also has appropriated 5 different levels of motivation for travel in the Leisure Ladder Model, from lower level to higher level, they are 1,2,3,4,5,

Among all of the analysis of various scholars from the above, because of the fact that The “Theory of Hierarchy of needs” proposed by Maslow could not exist all on its own in isolation in the Motivation Theory for Travelling, and the models of “to seek” and “to escape” proposed by ISO are very similar to the motivational factors which are “to push and to pull” proposed by DANN. Therefore I am going to emphasize on the expression of the opinions by DANN and PEARCE. I think it is OK to combine the “To push and to pull” theories proposed by DANN with the “Ladder Theories” proposed by PEARCE. That is to say, in accordance with PEARCE, the “To push and to pull” factors could be found among the theories of motivation for traveling among various members of all of the social class. For example, among the relationship needs, the pushing and pulling motivations could be located. For example, a couple who has been married for 10 years decides to travel on their marriage anniversary. This decision is to improve or foster better relationship between them. Therefore, this is one motivational factor which encourages them to travel. After deciding to use the means of travel to improve their relationship and foster good feelings among them, they then begin to seek an appropriate location for travels, they may decide to go back to the place of their honeymoons, they may also decide to places which they have not been before to enjoy new and adventurous experiences. These are factors which pull them and encourage them to decide the locations for travels. By combing these two theories, it could make the motivation for the travelers clearer.


This essay has summarized various theories in the field of motivation for traveling proposed by 4 different scholars. Dann thinks the motivation for traveling could be broken down into two parts: “to push” and “to pull’. “To push” is the internal factor which is the reason causing the traveler to go on travelling. “To pull” is the characteristics and the factors which attract, in association with the destination. This external factor determines their choices. The opinions proposed by Iso-Ahala are very similar to the opinions proposed by Dann. His “theories on Seeking and Escaping” refers the “pushing and pulling motivation” proposed by Dann. “To escape” is similar “to push”. It is the reason why the traveler desired to leave the usual place of abode. “To seek” is similar “to pull”. It is to seek a special place which is different from the usual place of abode, to gain satisfaction.

PEARCE has interpreted the “Theory of Hierarchy of Needs” proposed by Maslow in a very good way.  He has classified 5 different levels from low to high among various motivational factors in terms of variation in ages, experiences of travelers. He has pointed out that people‘s needs for traveling vary, towards higher needs, with the increasing of experiences and ages.

I have combined them after understanding the various different opinions in terms of motivations for traveling proposed by different/every scholar, have applied the “push and pull” theories proposed by DANN into the :theories of Leisure Ladder” proposed by PEARCE, have completed the whole process of “Internal/external factors which engenders travelers to go on holiday traveling, the various characters in terms of their age, life experiences and in association with the traveling destination have made them to reach the decisions, to complete the traveling process”.

Article Two:
什么是社会主义？不同的社会有不同的价值追求目标，正因为有不同的追求目标，因此在社会的实际运行过程中也就出现不同的方式。社会是由人组成的，人和人之 间的关系分为血缘的、政治的、经济的、文化的等各方面，其中血缘关系是一种低层次的关系，政治、经济、文化是高层次的社会关系。社会大系统在宏观层次上说 是由政治、经济、文化三个子系统组成。不同群体的人的社会生活表现为政治、经济、文化三个主要方面。因此，分析社会的价值追求目标，应当从政治、经济、文 化三个方面入手。
社会主义社会所追求的价值目标是什么呢？从政治方面说就是人人平等的享有政治权利和义务，平等的享有选举权和被选举权，平等的享有参与、管理社会的各项权 利；经济上促进生产力的发展和共同生活富裕；文化价值观念上追求实现社会的公平正义以及个人的信仰自由等。这三个方面的内容共同构成了社会主义社会所追求 的价值目标。
在政治、经济、文化三个子系统中，经济是基础，政治、文化系统的发展要与经济基础相适应，既不能超越也不能滞后。这里强调“相适应”而非经济基础必然的 “决定”政治、文化系统的发展以唯一的状态存在。比如一块钢铁可以制作成门窗、桌椅、设备等等，但不能用以制作直接能吃的食品等等，这就是相适应。也就是 说在同一个经济基础上有可能建构不同的政治、文化系统。
经济的首要问题是财产权利的归属问题。所有制问题从财物出现剩余的那时起就一直困扰着人类。原始社会没有多少剩余物品，人类也就没有这种苦恼，但也没有幸 福、安全、有保障的生活，时时处于物质缺乏的危机之中。产生了剩余财富，自然也就产生了归谁所有的问题。奴隶社会、封建社会靠强权霸占社会的剩余财富，政 治上也就只能是靠强力维持统治，不可能实行人人平等的享有政治权利，文化价值观念的追求以满足这种统治为目的，不可能追求公平正义的价值目标。尽管在封建 社会也有不少“两袖清风，秉公断案”的清官，但他们不可能从根本上改变社会的追求目标。
财富在今天的社会里依然是稀缺的，拥有财富，意味着拥有了高的社会地位，这不仅表现在个人的消费方面，更重要的表现在对社会运行的支配和影响上。尤其是以 群体形式出现的资本家阶级和劳动者阶级之间也就不可能真正的享有平等的政治和文化权利。资本家阶级及其附庸或同盟与劳动者阶级所追求的价值目标的不同或对 立，使整个社会的文化价值观念不可能形成一致的追求，实际情况是只能在一定的时期内形成以何种价值观念为主导的文化价值体系。
马克思作为全世界无产阶级的革命导师，认为社会的一切不平等和不公正起因于不同的人对生产资料的占有不同，资本家阶级以占有生产资料的优势社会地位而剥削 工人。他看到了生产资料私有制的丑恶和工人阶级的日益贫困化，因而号召全世界无产者联合起来，消灭私有制经济，建立公有制经济，以便实现经济上的平等而实 现政治、文化权利的平等。公有制的建立，消灭了私有制经济的丑恶，却又产生了权力的异化问题。在公有制经济社会里，每个公民不可能直接行使管理公有财产的 权力，只能把权力让渡给代理人代为行使，而代理人在运用权力支配财产的过程中产生严重的权力异化。资本家阶级被消灭了，官僚集团产生了，所不同的只是从表 面看资本家拥有生产资料的所有权而官僚集团只拥有管理支配权，但在实际上，所有权的四项权能：占有、使用、收益、处分的权利官僚集团全部享有，资本家拥有 所有权而拥有这四项权利，官僚集团也拥有这四项权利，所不同的是资本家会珍惜这四项权利的运用而使财产发挥最大的效果，使社会的经济总量增加，而官僚集团 则不一定，他们可能因计划的失败不能发挥财产的最大效用，也可能用权力进行寻租而中饱私囊。在私有制经济社会里，工人阶级有可能与资本家阶级斗争，如通过 罢工等等争取自己的利益，而在公有制经济社会里，只能期望官僚集团能够考虑普通劳动者阶级的利益而作出相应的安排。官僚集团作为一个整体远比资本家个人之 间及其同盟之间的耦合更为紧密，一个企业中的工人很可能与资本家斗争一番，但不可能与官僚集团斗争，只能期望官僚集团的民主，而这种民主往往只是一种美丽 的期望。当官僚集团的权力异化走向极端的时候，普通劳动者阶级实际享受到的政治民主权利、经济利益和文化权利，远低于在一个正常发展的资本主义社会所能享 受到的水平。私有制经济国家普遍所允许的一定程度的结社、言论、新闻自由以及游行示威、罢工等等在前苏联等公有制经济社会里都是所禁止的。
马克思恩格斯认真的思考着，列宁、毛泽东、周恩来用自己的一生实践着，但最终普通劳动人民都未能实际过上领袖们和劳动人民自己所期望的那种生活。对于“主 义”，劳动者阶级是弄不懂的，他们弄不懂也不想弄懂更不可能弄懂，马克思列宁的著作有几十卷，毛泽东也有五卷，现在又有了一些著作，这对每天要工作的普通 人来说读一遍领袖们的著作都是不大可能的事情，况且领袖们都未搞清楚的事情，普通劳动者又如何能搞明白？对普通劳动人民来说，他们需要的是实际的生活水平 的提高而绝非是实现某种主义。是实际的物质生活和精神生活，经典的社会主义理论也认为社会主义生产的目的是为了满足人民不断增长的物质文化需要，这是社会 主义的价值追求目标，如果不能实现这个目的，就不是真正的社会主义。对当今中国社会来说，社会已分化为四个阶级：国家管理人、资本家、中产阶级、劳动者， 劳动者站总人口的90%左右。⑴是绝对的绝大多数，这90%的人生活水平好不好将说明社会所追求的价值目标好不好。中国的社会主义应当追求这90%的劳动 者阶级享有与其他阶级平等的政治民主权利、生活上的富裕和对文化生活的享受。劳动者阶级如果实际享受了这些权利，其他强势阶级就更不用说了。
社会主义在在经济方面的价值目标是促进经济的发展和共同的生活富裕。不论是私有制经济还是公有制经济，劳动人民的富裕都只有可能是生活方面的富裕，即在一 般的道德水平下，以保证正常的生活质量为目的正常的生活消费水平的提高和一定程度的满足，不包括对生产资料的占有。在私有制社会，生产资料归资本家所有， 在公有制社会，只是名义上生产资料归全体国民所有，但无实质性的内容。

1.     The goal to pursue in a socialistic society is that every member of the society should be co-equally entitled to political, economic and cultural privileges/rights.

What is socialism? Different society has different goal of valueto pursue. Due to the existence of different targets to pursue,there are different methods to adopt in the process of actualrunning of societies. The society is composed of people. There aredifferent types of relationships between people such as blood,political, economic and cultural and other aspects. Among them,blood relationship is a low level relationship whereas political,economic and cultural relationships are of high levelrelationships. From a macro-perspective, the overall system of asociety is composed of three sub-systems and there are political,economic and cultural sub-systems. The social life of people ofdifferent groups could be subsumed in the three major aspects aspolitical, economic and cultural. Therefore, the analysis of thegoal of value to pursue in a given society should depart from thethree aspects as political, economic andcultural.
What is the social goal of value to pursue in a socialistsociety? From the political perspective, it is every member of thesociety should be co-equally entitled to political rights andobligations, co-equally entitled to the rights to elect and beelected, co-equally entitled to all respective rights in terms ofparticipating and managing the society. From the economicperspective, it is the fostering of the development of productivityand universal attainment of wealthy/rich life style. From thecultural perspective, it is the pursuit of the realisation ofsocial justice and personal liberty in terms of (religious) belief.The contents in these three aspects have altogether established thegoal of pursuing value of a socialist society.
Among the three sub-systems, economic sub-system is thefoundation, the development of political and cultural sub-systemshould be synchronised with economic foundation. Political andcultural sub-system should not overtake or fall behind economicalsub-system. The point to emphasize is the synchronisation otherthan the fact that economic foundation would certainly determinethe development of political and cultural sub-systems so that theywould exist in the status of only one form. For example, a piece ofsteel could be made into windows/doors, tables/chairs and equipmentand so on. But it could not be directly converted into somethingedible and so on. This is called as synchronisation. That is alsoto say, on the same basis of economic foundation, it is possible toconstruct different types of political and cultural subsystems.
From the economic perspective, the primary issue is theallocation of property ownership. The issue of ownership has becomea problem which continuously bothered human beings since the firsttime of the emergence of superfluous possessions. During theprimitive society, people do not have so many things to spare, theytherefore do not have this problem. But they also do not havehappy, safe and guaranteed life style, they are continuouslyexperiencing the crisis in which there is the shortage ofmaterials. After the emergence of surplus possession, the problemof ownership naturally occurs. In the slavery society orfeudalistic society, the superfluous items are controlled by force.Therefore, from a political perspective, rule by force is the onlyavailable option and it is impossible to implement a system inwhich every member is coequally entitled to political privileges.From a cultural perspective, the purpose is to satisfy the needs tomaintain this rules and it is impossible to pursue justice as thegoal of value. Despite the fact that there are numerous uncorruptedofficials who justly issued verdicts, they could not fundamentallychange the pursuing goal of the overallsociety.
Financial possessions are still in great scarcity in thecontemporary society. The ownership of financial possessions meansthe ownership of higher social status. This is not only embodied inthe aspect of personal consumption but more importantly embodied incontrolling or influencing the running of the society. This isespecially so that, between capitalist class and labouring classwhen they have emerged in the form of groups, it is impossible toexpect a coequal sharing of political and cultural rights betweenthese two. The goals of pursuing value between the capitalist class& its allies and members of labouring class aredifferent or opposing against each other. This has precludedpossibilities of formulating a universal pursuit in terms ofperspective on cultural values in the overall society as a whole.In practice, the issue will be what kind of cultural value could beformulated to be the leading system of culturalvalue.
Karl Marx, as a mentor for revolutions for all proletariat allover the world, believes that all social injustice and inequalityare resulted from the different ownership status of productionmaterials by different people. Capitalist class could exploitworkers because it has occupied an advantageous position whichenables them to possess the production materials. He has noticedthe evilness of private ownership and the gradual deterioration ofthe financial situations of the working class. Therefore, he hascalled for the uniting of all proletariat to destroy the system ofprivate ownership and establish the system of public ownership forthe purpose of realising the co-equality in the respect of finance.As a result, the co-equality in the political, cultural aspectcould be realised. The establishment of economy of public ownershiphas destroyed the diabolicalnessof   economy of privateownership, but the issue of the alienation (corruption) of powerhas been created. In a society with the economy of publicownership, every citizen could not directly utilise the power tomanage public assets and this power could only be delegated to therepresentatives of the citizenry. However, during the process ofutilising the power to appropriate public assets byrepresentatives, the alienation of power (corruption) has beencreated. Capitalists as a class have been destroyed, bureaucrats asa single group have been created. The only difference is thatsuperficially capitalists possess the ownership rights ofproduction materials whereas bureaucrats only control theappropriation rights. But, in reality, bureaucrats have possessedall of the four components of ownership rights which are:possessing, utilising, benefiting, disposing. Capitalists possessownership rights so that they possess these four rights,bureaucrats also possess these four rights. The only difference isthat capitalists would cherish the possession rights so thatmaximum benefits could be extracted from the assets and the overallquantity of social economy could be increased. However, this maynot be true for bureaucrats. They may cause the situation wheremaximum benefit of assets could not be extracted due to failure ofplans and they may also try to adopt the process of rent-seeking tobenefit themselves. In a society which adopts economical system ofprivate ownership, members of the working class may initiateconfrontation with capitalists, for example by the means ofstriking to fight for their own interests. But in a society ofpublic ownership, the only thing which could be done is to expectthat bureaucrats may make some arrangements by considering theinterests of labouring class. As a single group, bureaucrats are byfar more interconnected than capitalistsindividuals.  Workers in an enterprise may bepossible to confront the capitalists but they could not confrontthe bureaucrats. The only hope for them is to expect bureaucrats toimplement system of democracy, but, this kind of democracy isusually a kind of beautiful expectation. When the alienation ofpower of the bureaucrats goes to extreme, the actual politicaldemocratic rights, economic rights and cultural rights enjoyed bythe members of working class are by far lower than the similarrights enjoyed by workers in a normally developed capitalistsociety. Freedom in organisation and speech and news anddemonstration and striking, which are universally allowed to acertain degree in countries adopting the economical system ofprivate ownership, are forbidden in countries like the formerSoviet Union and other society which adopts economical system ofpublic ownership.
The inequality of social class, which has been created as aresult of the system of private ownership, has deprived members ofcommon labouring class of the political democratic and economicalcultural rights (privileges) in the same way as the dictatorialcentral control as a result of system of public ownership. For thelarge proportion of members of the labouring class, is it better tohave the system of private ownership or the system of publicownership? This question has always puzzled those saints orphilosophers, more so to the common members of the labouringclass.
Marx and Engels had been carefully pondering, Lenin, Mao Zedong,Zhou Enlai had used their whole life practicing, But, finally,those members of the laboring class have not been able to lead alife style which is up to the expectation of those leaders and thelaborers themselves. For the issue of principle, those members of laboring class would not be able to understand it.They could not understand it and they have no intention to decipherit and they are even unable to understand it. Works written by Marxand Engels have scores of volumes. Works written by Mao has 5volumes. Now, there have some new volumes. It is highly impossiblefor those common people who have to go to work everyday to readonce works written by those leaders. Besides, how could it bepossible for common laborers to understand those things thatleaders have not deciphered yet? For those common laborers, whatthey want is the improvement of their actual living standardsrather than implementation of certain principles. It is actual lifein terms of material and spiritual dimensions. Classical socialismalso believes that purpose of production in a socialist society isto meet the gradually increasing demands of materials consumptionof the people. This is socialist pursuing goal of value. If thisgoal could not be realized, it is not true socialism. Forcontemporary Chinese society, it has been divided into fourclasses: state management personnel, capitalist personnel, middleclass personnel, labouring personnel. Members of laboring classoccupy the ratio of ninety percent of overall populations. They arethe absolute majority. Whether or not the living standard of thisportion of ninety percent of overall population is good signifieswhether or not the society has a good pursuing goal of value. Thepursuing goal of the Chinese socialism is to enable ninety percentportion of the overall population (laboring class) being able tocoequally share political and democratic rights, improvement ofliving standards and the enjoyment of cultural life with otherclasses.  If members of the laboring class wereable to enjoy those privileges, worries would not have to be on thesame issue for other strongly positioned classes.
From the economical perspective, socialist pursuing goal ofvalue is to foster economical development and improvement ofuniversal living standards. Whatever it is private economicalownership or public economical ownership,  formembers of laboring class, improvement of living standards is onlyable to be referring to enrichment of life styles. The improvementof living standards is the satisfaction to a certain degree andimprovement of normal living consumption standards for the purposeof normal living quality, under the normal moral standards,excluding the possession of production materials. In a societywhich adopts system of private ownership, production materialsbelong to capitalist class. In a society which adopts system ofpublic ownership, production materials nominally belong to all ofits citizenry, but with no practical significance.

The origin of the above article is the following,which is in Chinese:

Article Three


How difficult is translation?

翻译的工作对翻译工作者的语言水平提出的客观要求是,翻译工作者的母语要比多数的普通本国人要好,同时外语要比多数的相应国家的人要好。 这主要是针对文学翻译人，但对科技翻译人要求也不很低，科技翻译工作者不可能仅仅翻译科技资料而一点不涉足普通内容的翻译—就是这个普通内容的翻译给 科技翻译工作者也提出了可畏的语言水平要求。

The objective requirement for the language capabilities of translation workers for completing the translation jobs is the translator’s capability of using the native language should be better than the majority of common/normal people in his home country and the ability of using foreign language should be better than the majority of common/normal people in the respective country. This is mostly targeting literature translators. But for those translators translating science and technology, the requirement is also not relatively low. For those science and technology translators, they could not solely involve in the translation of science and technology without doing other normal translations. It is this normal translation which has put forward a fearsome/difficult language requirement in front of those science/technology translators.


In daily life, for those literature translators, most of them are simultaneously writers. Putting it simply, with respect to Chinese-English translation, the Chinese-English literature translators in daily life are all basically Chinese writers or English writers. Mr Lin yutang is someone who has covered both. He is selling his Chinese writing in China and English writing in the United States.


If the English written does not reach the standard which is sellable in the United States, then, the Chinese works translated in English could also not be able to sell in the United States.


You may be thinking that I am referring to the language requirement of translation experts. This is not true because normal translators would from time to time encounter situation which requires the language capability of translation experts. But, the majority of us is not translation experts. This is the important reason which has created plight and depression of normal/commonplace translators.


Talking about this, now you can understand how difficult translation is??????? Only a genius could be good at translation, an industrious genius. But genius all know translation is not an easy job and they do not choose to do translation. They all get involve in trade or business. People could not usually avoid the pursuit of money and fame and they would usually not “devote their lives” to communism.

I have copied this article and translated into English. For comments on the original Chinese article, please send email to, for comments on the translation, please send email to,