1) Human life is sacred — Человеческая жизнь неприкосновенна.
2) I bumped into an old friend in town today — Сегодня в городе я столкнулся со старым приятелем.
3) The captain gave the order to abandon ship — Капитан приказал покинуть корабль.
4) In the cafe played plaintive melody, so all visitors left it – В кафе играла жалобная мелодия, поэтому все посетители его покинули.
5) It's ludicrous that we have to show our student ticket each time when we come to a university — Просто нелепо, что мы должны каждый раз предъявлять студенческий билет, когда приходим университет.
6) You will be called over the coals for your conduct — Вам попадёт за ваше поведение.
7) The rumors about the coming flood were exaggerated — Слухи о приближающимся наводнении оказались преувеличенными.
8) Ascot Racecourse is the world's most famous racecourse with a history of horse racing spanning 300 years – Аскотские скачки – самые знаменитые в мире скачки с историей, насчитывающей 300 лет.
9) Ranging is to change the size of the object - Масштабирование заключается в изменении размера объекта.
10) John bemoaned the loss of his flat keys – Джон оплакивал потерю дверных ключей.
11) The intellect instinctively dreads lies — Разум инстинктивно страшится лжи.
12) This book contains observations about the causes of cancer — В книге содержатся наблюдения о причинах рака.
13) Many people expressed their discontent with the conducted elections - Население выразило свое недовольство проведенными выборами.
14) All nations have their own customs – У всех наций есть свои собственные обычаи.
15) The fisherman's line became enmeshed in roots under the water — Леска рыбака запуталась в подводных корнях.
16) The sanitary conditions were notorious. — Санитарные условия были, несомненно, ужасными.
17) I could feel the cat rubbing against my leg — Я чувствовал, как кошка трётся о мою ногу.
18) The two things which he most desired could not be possessed simultaneously — Две вещи, о которых он больше всего мечтал, не могли быть в его распоряжении одновременно.
19) They were still squabbling with his mother and his many creditors — Они всё ещё спорили с его матерью и его многочисленными кредиторами.
20) Father flagellated his son for breaking his car – Отец выпорол сына за то, что он сломал его машину.
21) We made a reservation at a very good hotel — Мы забронировали места в очень хорошей гостинице.
22) His dolefulmood transferred to other people – Его унылое настроение передалось другим людям.
23) The letter was short - a simple recitation of their problems — Письмо было коротким - простое перечисление их проблем.
24) His actions were legitimately justified - Его действия были законно обоснованы.
25) Can you split up this piece of wood? — Ты можешь расколоть эту деревяшку?
26) Молодоженам давали в подарок детские коляски для их будущих детей - The newly married couple were given a prams for their future children as a gift.
27) У дома низкие потолки — The house has low ceilings
28) Она сидела на краю бассейна, болтая ногами в воде — She sat on the edge of the pool, dangling her feet in the water.
29) Криштиану Роналду приобрел плохую репутацию как симулянт — Cristiano Ronaldo has acquired a bad reputation as a simulator.
30) Они поступили опрометчиво, отправившись гулять ночью одни — It was reckless of them to go out alone at night.
31) Он продал телефон по принуждению родителей — He sold his mobile phone under the compulsion of parents.
32) Она неуверенно позвала его по имени, затем повторила это громче — She called his name tentatively, then repeated it more loudly.
33) Вопиющее несоответствие между двумя летописцами просто очевидно — The great discrepancy between the two Chroniclers is merely apparent.
34) Существует фундаментальное различие в толковании — There is a fundamental difference in interpretation.
35) Отклонение в поведении сложилось в детстве — Deviation in behaviour has developed in childhood.
36) Между четырьмя диетами было основное сходство - There was an underlying similarity between the four diets.
37) Он отметил, что только потому, что он секс-символ, у него не было никаких причин, чтобы совершить супружескую измену— He observed that just because he was a sex symbol there was no reason to commit adultery.
38) Она не знала терминов ухаживания, любовь, брак — She was ignorant of the terms courtship, love, and marriage.
39) Буш младший был предшественником Обамы на посту президента США — Bush, Jr preceded Obama as president of the US.
40) Самое поразительное в гобелене - это очаровательная свежесть — The most striking thing about the tapestry is the charming freshness.
41) Осы обладают удивительной восстановительной системой — Wasps have amazing resurgence system.
42) Каждая этническая принадлежность должны быть принята и уважаема во всех странах — Every ethnicity should be accepted and respected in all countries.
43) Шумная компания молодых людей гуляла по парку — A vociferous company of young people walked in the park.
44) Передача центральными властями полномочий местным органам власти — Devolution of powers to local authorities by a central government.
45) Творчество Джека Лондона оказалj на него большое влияние — Creativity Jack London affects him deeply.
46) США и Россия пришли к соглашению о сокращении ядерных вооружений — The USA and Russia came to an agreement about the reduction of nuclear arms.
47) Племенные разногласия иногда являются причиной кровопролития — Tribal disputes are sometimes causing of the bloodshed.
48) Он предложил наиболее последовательный план для улучшения школ — He proposed the most coherent plan to improve the schools.
49) Каждый шаг должен быть сделан в правильном порядке — Each step must be done in the proper order.
50) Мы попытались связаться с ними — We made an attempt to get in touch with them.
The text is entitled «Watching the English».
The text focuses on such problems as anthropology at home; the «grammar» of Englishness; participant observation and its discontents; the Good, the Bad and the Uncomfortable; my family and other lab rats; trust me, I’m an anthropologists; boring but important; the nature of culture; rule making; globalization and tribalization; britishness and Englishness; stereotypes and cultural genomics.
In the first place the author describes anthropology at home. It’s stressed that the author is about to return to the train station and spend a few hours committing a deadly sin: queue jumping. But she wants to abandon the whole stupid Englishness project here and now, go home, have a cup of tea and lead a normal life. Above all, she does not want to go and jump queues all afternoon. Secondly, the author tells about the «grammar» of Englishness. It’s shown that we are constantly being told that the English have lost their national identity – that there is no such thing as «Englishness». Having spent much of the past twelve years doing research on various aspects of English culture and social behaviour The author is convinced that there is such a thing as ‘Englishness’, and that reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated. And she sets out to discover the hidden, unspoken rules of English behaviour, and what these rules tell us about our national identity. All groups behave in accordance with the same unwritten rules – rules that define our national identity and character. Most people obey the unwritten rules of their society instinctively, without being conscious of doing so. Thirdly, the author gives detailed information about participant observation and its discontents. It’s stressed that «participant observation» means participating in the life and culture of the people one is studying, to gain a true insider’s perspective on their customs and behaviour, while simultaneously observing them as a detached, objective scientist. While participant observation has its limitations, this rather uneasy combination of involvement and detachment is still the best method we have for exploring the complexities of human cultures, so it will have to do. Fourthly, the author analyses the Good, the Bad and the Uncomfortable. It’s shown that the author studying the less salubrious aspects of English life: conducting research in violent pubs, seedy nightclubs, run-down betting shops and the like. Yet after years of research on aggression, disorder, violence, crime and other forms of deviance and dysfunction. Later, with Peter Marsh they resolved to concentrate as much as possible on studying positive aspects of human interaction. With this new focus, we were now no longer obliged to seek out violent pubs, but could spend time in pleasant ones (the latter also had the advantage of being much easier to find, as the vast majority of pubs are congenial and trouble-free). Fifthly, the author gives a brief outline about my family and other lab rats. It’s stressed that Although in fact the author was to spend much of her time studying relatively unfamiliar sub-cultures, these were still ‘my people’, so it seemed reasonable to question my ability to treat them as laboratory rats, albeit with only half of my ethnographer’s split personality (the head-patting observer half, as opposed to the tummy-rubbing participant). Her family also pointed out that her father – Robin Fox, a much more eminent anthropologist – had been training me for this role (anthropologist) since I was a baby. Sixthly, the author tells us about trust me, I’m an anthropologist. It’s shown that the most important of thing was the search for rules. When the author with her relatives arrived in any unfamiliar culture, she was to look for regularities and consistent patterns in the natives’ behaviour, and try to work out the hidden rules – the conventions or collective understandings – governing these behaviour patterns. Seventhly, the next problem is boring but important. It’s stressed that the author’s quest is to identify the rules of Englishness is not confined to a search for specific rules of conduct, but will include rules in the wider sense of standards, norms, ideals, guiding principles and ‘facts’ about ‘normal or usual’ English behaviour. Eighthly, the author describes the nature of culture. It’s shown that author see English culture as a homogeneous entity – that she expects to find no variation in behaviour patterns, customs, beliefs, etc. – any more than I am suggesting that the ‘rules of Englishness’ are universally obeyed. At the same time, she is conscious of the wider danger of cross-cultural ‘ethnographic dazzle’ – of blindness to the similarities between the English and other cultures. The next problem is rule making. It’s stressed that the human species is addicted to rule making. The rules may vary from culture to culture, but there are always rules. Different foods may be prohibited in different societies, but every society has food taboos. We have rules about everything. Then it goes globalization and tribalization. It’s shown that the principal effect of globalization has been an increase in nationalism and tribalism, a proliferation of struggles for independence in almost all parts of the world, including the so-called United Kingdom. We are living in a dumbed-down world that is being obliterated by multinational capitalist giants. Within Britain there is far more evidence of increasing tribalization than of any reduction in cultural diversity. The fervour, and power, of Scottish and Welsh nationalists does not seem to be much affected by their taste for American soft drinks, junk food or films. Then author tells us about britishness and Englishness. It’s stressed that The trouble is that virtually all nations have a number of regions, each of which invariably regards itself as different from, and superior to, all the others. This applies in France, Italy, the US, Russia, Mexico, Spain, Scotland, Australia – and more or less anywhere else you care to mention. ‘Britishness’ seems to me to be a rather meaningless term: when people use it, they nearly always really mean ‘Englishness’ – they do not mean that someone is being frightfully Welsh or Scottish. And finally the author analyses stereotypes and cultural genomics. It’s shown that Most things look rather different when you put them under a microscope, and sure enough, the author found that stereotypes such as English ‘reserve’, ‘politeness’, ‘weather-talk’ and so on were not quite what they seemed – and they all had complex layers of rules and codes that were not visible to the naked eye. She supposes another way of describing my Englishness project would be as an attempt to sequence - the English cultural genome – to identify the cultural ‘codes’ that make us who we are. To sum up we can say, that English have cultural identity that inherent only for them.
ANTHROPOLOGY AT HOME
I am sitting in a pub near Paddington station, clutching a small brandy. It’s only about half past eleven in the morning – a bit early for drinking, but the alcohol is part reward, part Dutch courage. Reward because I have just spent an exhausting morning accidentally-on-purpose bumping into people and counting the number who said ‘Sorry’; Dutch courage because I am now about to return to the train station and spend a few hours committing a deadly sin: queue jumping.
I really, really do not want to do this. I want to adopt my usual method of getting an unsuspecting research assistant to break sacred social rules while I watch the result from a safe distance. But this time, I have bravely decided that I must be my own guinea pig. I don’t feel brave. I feel scared. My arms are all bruised from the bumping experiments. I want to abandon the whole stupid Englishness project here and now, go home, have a cup of tea and lead a normal life. Above all, I do not want to go and jump queues all afternoon.
Why am I doing this? What exactly is the point of all this ludicrous bumping and jumping (not to mention all the equally daft things I’ll be doing tomorrow)? Good question. Perhaps I’d better explain.
THE ‘GRAMMAR’ OF ENGLISHNESS
We are constantly being told that the English have lost their national identity – that there is no such thing as «Englishness». There has been a spate of books bemoaning this alleged identity crisis, with titles ranging from the plaintive «Anyone for England? » to the inconsolable England: An Elegy. Having spent much of the past twelve years doing research on various aspects of English culture and social behaviour – in pubs, at racecourses, in shops, in night-clubs, on trains, on street corners – I am convinced that there is such a thing as ‘Englishness’, and that reports of its demise have been greatly exaggerated. In the research for this book, I set out to discover the hidden, unspoken rules of English behaviour, and what these rules tell us about our national identity.
The object was to identify the commonalities in rules governing English behaviour – the unofficial codes of conduct that cut across class, age, sex, region, sub-cultures and other social boundaries. For example, Women’s Institute members and leather-clad bikers may seem, on the surface, to have very little in common, but by looking beyond the ‘ethnographic dazzle’1 of superficial differences, I found that Women’s Institute members and bikers, and other groups, all behave in accordance with the same unwritten rules – rules that define our national identity and character. I would also maintain, with George Orwell, that this identity ‘is continuous, it stretches into the future and the past, there is something in it that persists, as in a living creature’.
My aim, if you like, was to provide a ‘grammar’ of English behaviour. Native speakers can rarely explain the grammatical rules of their own language. In the same way, those who are most ‘fluent’ in the rituals, customs and traditions of a particular culture generally lack the detachment necessary to explain the ‘grammar’ of these practices in an intelligible manner. This is why we have anthropologists.
Most people obey the unwritten rules of their society instinctively, without being conscious of doing so. For example, you automatically get dressed in the morning without consciously reminding yourself that there is an unspoken rule of etiquette that prohibits going to work in one’s pyjamas. But if you had an anthropologist staying with you and studying you, she would be asking: ‘Why are you changing your clothes?’ ‘What would happen if you went to work in pyjamas?’ ‘What else can’t you wear to work?’ ‘Why is it different on Fridays?’ ‘Does everyone in your company do that?’ ‘Why don’t the senior managers follow the Dress-down Friday custom?’ And on, and on, until you were heartily sick of her. Then she would go and watch and interrogate other people – from different groups within your society – and, hundreds of nosy questions and observations later, she would eventually decipher the ‘grammar’ of clothing and dress in your culture.