The language barrier: Rào cản ngôn ngữ

 



A

The discovery that language can be a barrier to communication is quickly made by all who travel, study, govern or sell.

Tất cả những ai đi du lịch, học tập, làm việc hay buôn bán ở nước ngoài sẽ nhanh chóng  phát hiện ra rằng ngôn ngữ có thể là một rào cản thực sự đối với họ.


Whether the activity is tourism, research, government, policing, business, or data dissemination, the lack of a common language can severely impede progress or can halt it altogether.

Cho dù bạn hoạt động trong lĩnh vực du lịch, nghiên cứu, chính phủ, ban hành chính sách, kinh doanh, hay truyền bá thông tin thì việc thiếu một ngôn ngữ chung có thể cản trở nghiêm trọng hoặc có thể ngăn chặn công việc của bạn hoàn toàn.

'Common language' here usually means a foreign language, but the same point applies in principle to any encounter with unfamiliar dialects or styles within a single language.

"Ngôn ngữ chung" ở đây thường có nghĩa là ngôn ngữ nước ngoài, nhưng cũng có thể hiểu là việc trở ngại khi chúng ta phải đối mặt với các phương ngữ hay cách nói lạ lẵm trong cùng một ngôn ngữ.


'They don't talk the same language' has a major metaphorical meaning alongside its literal one.

Ngoài nghĩa đen của mình thì câu nói "họ không nói cùng một ngôn ngữ" có một ý nghĩa ẩn dụ lớn.

B

Although communication problems of this kind must happen thousands of times each day, very few become public knowledge.

Mặc dù vấn đề trở ngại về mặt giao tiếp này có thể đã xảy ra hàng ngàn lần mỗi ngày nhưng  rất ít ai biết.


Publicity comes only when a failure to communicate has major consequences, such as strikes, lost orders, legal problems, or fatal accidents - even, at times, war.

Công chúng chỉ biết đến vấn đề này khi xảy ra một hậu quả nghiêm trọng, chẳng hạn như các đình công, mất đơn đặt hàng, các vấn đề về pháp lý, hoặc tai nạn chết người - thậm chí, chiến tranh.

One reported instance of communication failure took place in 1970, when several Americans ate a species of poisonous mushroom.

Ví dụ một báo cáo nói về việc giao tiếp sai lệch diễn ra vào năm 1970 khi một số người Mỹ ăn phải một loài nấm độc.


No remedy was known, and two of the people died within days.

Lúc đó không có phương thuốc nào được biết đến và vài ngày sau hai trong số những người trên đã thiệt mạng.

A radio report of the case was heard by a chemist who knew of a treatment that had been successfully used in 1959 and published in 1963.

Vụ án này đã được một nhà hoá học trình bày trên đài radio rằng ông biết cách điều trị và phương pháp điều trị này đã được sử dụng thành công vào năm 1959 và được xuất bản rộng rãi vào năm 1963.


Why had the American doctors not heard of it seven years later? Presumably because the report of the treatment had been published only in journals written in European languages other than English.

Vậy tại sao các bác sĩ Mỹ không nghe nói gì về vụ này bảy năm sau đó? Có lẽ bởi vì báo cáo về phương án điều trị trên đã được công bố trên các tạp chí chỉ được viết bằng các ngôn ngữ châu Âu nào đó khác tiếng Anh.

C

Several comparable cases have been reported.

Mọi người đã đem ra một số trường hợp để so sánh.


But isolated examples do not give an impression of the size of the problem — something that can come only from studies of the use or avoidance of foreign-language materials and contacts in different communicative situations.

Nhưng các ví dụ cô lập không thể hiện hết tầm quan trọng của vấn đề - một thứ mà chỉ có thể chứng minh khi nghiên cứu về việc sử dụng hoặc việc lẫn tránh các tài liệu viết bằng tiếng nước ngoài và việc liên lạc trong các tình huống giao tiếp khác nhau.

In the English-speaking scientific world, for example, surveys of books and documents consulted in libraries and other information agencies have shown that very little foreign-language material is ever consulted.

Ví dụ, trong thế giới khoa học nói tiếng Anh thì các cuộc điều tra về các sách vở và các tài liệu tham khảo ​​trong các thư viện và cơ quan truyền thông khác đã chỉ ra rằng mọi người rất ít tham khảo các tài liệu viết bằng tiếng nước ngoài.

Library requests in the field of science and technology showed that only 13 per cent were for foreign language periodicals.

Theo thống kê thì số yêu cầu trong thư viện ở các lĩnh vực khoa học và công nghệ cho thấy chỉ có 13 phần trăm là yêu cầu đọc tạp chí ngoại ngữ.


Studies of the sources cited in publications lead to a similar conclusion: the use of foreign- language sources is often found to be as low as 10 per cent.

Các nghiên cứu về các dữ liệu trích dẫn trong các ấn phẩm cũng cho một kết luận tương tự là việc sử dụng các nguồn là ngoại ngữ  thường được tìm thấy rất thấp chỉ chiếm 10 phần trăm.

D

 

The language barrier presents itself in stark form to firms who wish to market their products in other countries.

Rào cản ngôn ngữ còn thể hiện sự ảm đạm của mình khi các công ty có nhu cầu tiếp thị sản phẩm của họ ở các nước khác.
 

British industry, in particular, has in recent decades often been criticised for its linguistic insularity — for its assumption that foreign buyers will be happy to communicate in English, and that awareness of other languages is not therefore a priority.

Đặc biệt ngành công nghiệp ở Anh trong nhiều thập kỷ gần đây thường xuyên bị chỉ trích vì tính hẹp hòi thiển cận trong ngôn ngữ khi họ giả định là những người mua nước ngoài sẽ rất vui nếu được giao tiếp bằng tiếng Anh, và do đó nhận thức về các ngôn ngữ khác không được ưu tiên.

In the 1960s, over two-thirds of British firms dealing with non-English-speaking customers were using English for outgoing correspondence; many had their sales literature only in English; and as many as 40 per cent employed no-one able to communicate in the customers' languages.

Trong thập niên 1960, hơn hai phần ba các công ty ở Anh khi giao dịch với các khách hàng  không nói tiếng Anh là họ sử dụng tiếng Anh trên các thư từ gửi đi ra ngoài; nhiều tài liệu bán hàng của họ chỉ được viết bằng tiếng Anh; và hơn 40 phần trăm nhân viên của họ không một ai có thể giao tiếp bằng ngôn ngữ của khách hàng.

A similar problem was identified in other English-speaking countries, notably the USA, Australia and New Zealand.

Việc này cũng xảy ra tương tự ở các nước nói tiếng Anh khác, đặc biệt là Mỹ, Úc và New Zealand.

And non-English-speaking countries were by no means exempt - although the widespread use of English as an alternative language made them less open to the charge of insularity.

Và các nước không nói tiếng Anh thì cũng không phải ngoại lệ mặc dù việc sử dụng rộng rãi tiếng Anh như một ngôn ngữ thay thế làm họ ít bị cảm giác bị cô lập hơn.

E

The criticism and publicity given to this problem since the 1960s seems to have greatly improved the situation, industrial training schemes have promoted an increase in linguistic and cultural awareness.

Những lời chỉ trích và công khai cho vấn đề này xuất hiện từ thập niên 1960 dường như đã cải thiện đáng kể tình hình, các đề án đào tạo công nghiệp đã thúc đẩy sự gia tăng nhận thức về ngôn ngữ và văn hóa.

Many firms now have their own translation services; to take just one example in Britain, Rowntree Mackintosh now publish their documents in six languages (English, French, German, Dutch, Italian and Xhosa).

Nhiều công ty hiện nay có dịch vụ dịch thuật của riêng mình; như lấy một ví dụ ở Anh, công ty Rowntree Mackintosh nay đã xuất bản tài liệu của mình với sáu ngôn ngữ (tiếng Anh, Pháp, Đức, Hà Lan, Ý và Xhosa).


Some firms run part-time language courses in the languages of the countries with which they are most involved; some produce their own technical glossaries, to ensure consistency when material is being translated.

Một số công ty đã tổ chức các khóa học ngôn ngữ bán thời gian trong các ngôn ngữ của các nước mà họ đang có giao dịch nhiều nhất; một số còn tạo ra các chú giải kỹ thuật riêng của mình, để đảm bảo tính nhất quán khi phiên djch các tài liệu.

It is now much more readily appreciated that marketing efforts can be delayed, damaged, or disrupted by a failure to take account of the linguistic needs of the customer.

Việc này ngày càng được đánh giá cao hơn khi các nỗ lực tiếp thị có thể bị trì hoãn, bị huỷ hoại hay bị thất bại chỉ vì nhu cầu ngôn ngữ của khách hàng.

F

The changes in awareness have been most marked in English-speaking countries, where the realisation has gradually dawned that by no means everyone in the world knows English well enough to negotiate in it.

Ở các nước nói tiếng Anh, họ đã dần dần thay đổi nhận thức và hiểu ra rằng không phải tất cả mọi người trên thế giới đều phải biết tiếng Anh đủ giỏi để thương lượng được với nhau.


This is especially a problem when English is not an official language of public administration, as in most parts of the Far East, Russia, Eastern Europe, the Arab world, Latin America and French- speaking Africa.

Điều này đặc biệt gặp vấn đề khi tiếng Anh không phải là ngôn ngữ chính thức trong hành chính ở nước họ, như trong hầu hết các bộ phận ở vùng Viễn Đông, Nga, Đông Âu, thế giới Ả Rập, châu Mỹ Latin và các nước châu Phi nói tiếng Pháp.

Even in cases where foreign customers can speak English quite well, it is often forgotten that they may not be able to understand it to the required level - bearing in mind the regional and social variation which permeates speech and which can cause major problems of listening comprehension.

Ngay cả trong trường hợp khách hàng nước ngoài có thể nói tiếng Anh khá tốt, chúng ta cũng thường quên rằng họ có thể không có khả năng hiểu ngôn ngữ đến mức được yêu cầu -  hãy nhớ rằng các biến thể của các khu vực và xã hội có thể sẽ ảnh hưởng đến lời nói và có thể gây ra vấn đề lớn về việc nghe hiểu.


In securing understanding, how 'we' speak to 'them' is just as important, it appears, as how 'they' speak to 'us'.

Để đảm bảo việc hiểu lẫn nhau thì dường như cách "chúng ta" nói chuyện với 'họ' cũng quan trọng như cách 'họ’ nói chuyện với 'chúng ta’.

VOA60 20210517

 




Justice Video Lectures With Michael Sandel From Harvard

 


Justice with Michael Sandel



What is justice?

What is the right thing to do? What is utilitarianism? What can we learn about human moral intuitions and thoughts from trolley problems? Do you change tracks so that a runaway train kills one person instead of five? What about killing the weakest member of a ship crew lost at sea to survive? Should we really weigh the happiness of the majority more heavily? What if they are undemocratic or evil? Can you measure pleasure objectively?

What do individual rights mean for libertarians? Does it make sense to redistribute wealth? Is taxation coercion? What about natural rights? How do they interact with laws of a society? Should rich people pay others to take part in conscription? What is the relationship between justice and patriotism? Is there a collision of free market economics and reproductive rights when it comes to surrogate motherhood? What is the relationship between motives and morality? Is there a categorical imperative? If you believe it is never alright to lie, would you tell a killer where your his intended victim is hiding?

Is Rawls’s veil of ignorance a realistic approach to society and law? Are pay differences between professions fair? How should you deal with societal inequalities? Is affirmative action just? What did Aristotle argue about values and justice? What is the relationship between the value theory of justice and individual rights? Did Aristotle think slavery was justified? What is communitarianism? Is patriotism a virtue or a vice? Is same-sex marriage just? How can we reason about the good life? Can the law be neutral on important issues?

Michael Sandel is Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University and is the instructor of a highly acclaimed and popular course called Justice that covers important moral and legal philosophy and issues with regards to how justice should work. Harvard has put video recordings of his lectures on Youtube, and the playlist can be found here.

These video lectures covers utilitarianism, libertarianism, liberalism, social contract theory, egalitarianism, patriotism, deontology, virtue ethics, Rawls’s theory of justice and communitarianism. The series contain 12 videos and spans about 11 hours. Also check out all the other video lectures on Debunking Denialism.


Michael J. Sandel is the Anne T. and Robert M. Bass Professor of Government at Harvard University, where he has taught political philosophy since 1980. His popular book, Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?, a New York Times best seller, relates the big questions of political philosophy to the most vexing issues of our time Nearly a thousand students pack Harvard’s historic Sanders Theatre to hear Michael Sandel, “perhaps the most prominent college professor in America,” (Washington Post) talk about justice, equality, democracy, and citizenship. Now it’s your turn to take the same journey in moral reflection that has captivated more than 15,000 students, as Harvard opens its classroom to the world. In this 12-part DVD series, Sandel challenges us with hard moral dilemmas and invites us to ponder the right thing to do—in politics and in our everyday lives.

VOLUME 1

Lecture 01: The Moral Side of Murder

Sandel starts of this series of video lectures by examining utilitarianism? He introduces the trolley problem and its variations, as well as discuss a historical legal case where the shipwrecked crew on a lost ship decided to eat the cabin boy.

EPISODE 1 Part 1 – The Moral side of Murder If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing, even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? That’s the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning.
Part 2 – The Case for Cannibalism Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century law case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive.

Lecture 02: Putting a Price Tag on Life

This second video continues the critical analysis of applied utilitarianism by looking at companies who put a price on human life. Which experiences provide the most pleasure? Should we always weigh the happiness of the majority the most, no matter of vile and cruel they are?

EPISODE 2 Part 1 – Putting a Price Tag on Life Sandel presents some contemporary cases in which cost-benefit analysis was used to put a dollar value on human life. The cases give rise to several objections to the utilitarian logic of seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Is it possible to sum up and compare all values using a common measure like money?
Part 2 – How to Measure Pleasure Sandel introduces J. S. Mill, a utilitarian philosopher who argues that seeking “the greatest good for the greatest number” is compatible with protecting individual rights, and that utilitarianism can make room for a distinction between higher and lower pleasures. Sandel tests this theory by playing video clips from three very different forms of entertainment: Shakespeare’s Hamlet, the reality show Fear Factor, and The Simpsons.

VOLUME 2

Lecture 03: Free to Choose

Sandel moves on to libertarianism? Is redistribution of wealth in the form of taxation a kind of slavery? What are the arguments for and against libertarianism?

EPISODE 03 Part 1 – Free to Choose With humorous references to Bill Gates and Michael Jordan, Sandel introduces the libertarian notion that redistributive taxation—taxing the rich to give to the poor—is akin to forced labor.
Part 2 – Who Owns Me? Students first discuss the arguments behind redistributive taxation. If you live in a society that has a system of progressive taxation, aren’t you obligated to pay your taxes? Don’t many rich people often acquire their wealth through sheer luck or family fortune? A group of students dubbed “Team Libertarian” volunteers to defend the libertarian philosophy against these objections.

Lecture 04: This Land is My Land

Are there natural rights that are so fundamental that no government should be able to violate them? How does John Locke and classical liberalism handle the issue of taxation?

EPISODE 04 Part 1 – This Land is My Land The philosopher John Locke believes that individuals have certain rights—to life, liberty, and property—which were given to us as human beings in the “the state of nature,” a time before government and laws were created. According to Locke, our natural rights are governed by the law of nature, known by reason, which says that we can neither give them up nor take them away from anyone else.
Part 2 – Consenting Adults If we all have unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property, how can a government enforce tax laws passed by the representatives of a mere majority? Doesn’t that amount to taking some people’s property without their consent? Locke’s response is that we give our “tacit consent” to obey the tax laws passed by a majority when we choose to live in a society.

VOLUME 3

Lecture 05: Hired Guns

Is it just for someone to hire a person to fight in their place? How does this relate to modern conscription? Should you be able to buy anything with money? Sandel describes the legal case where a couple paid a surrogate mother who eventually changed her mind. How do the free market relate to informed consent, reproductive rights and the moral status of selling a human life?

EPISODE 05 Part 1 – Hired Guns During the Civil War, men drafted into war had the option of hiring substitutes to fight in their place. Many students say they find that policy unjust, arguing that it is unfair to allow the affluent to avoid serving and risking their lives by paying less privileged citizens to fight in their place. This leads to a classroom debate about war and conscription. Is today’s voluntary army open to the same objection?
Part 2 – For Sale - Motherhood Professor Sandel examines the principle of free-market exchange as it relates to reproductive rights. Sandel begins with a humorous discussion of the business of egg and sperm donation. He then describes the case of “Baby M”—a famous legal battle that raised the unsettling question, “Who owns a baby?” Students debate the nature of informed consent, the morality of selling a human life, and the meaning of maternal rights.

Lecture 06: Mind your Motive

Sandel introduces Kant’s deontological ethics. Why did Kant think that duty is an important moral drive? What objections did Kant make against utilitarianism? How does Kantian ethics decide if an action is morally just?

EPISODE 06 Part 1 - Mind Your Motive Professor Sandel introduces Immanuel Kant, a challenging but influential philosopher. Kant rejects utilitarianism. He argues that each of us has certain fundamental duties and rights that take precedence over maximizing utility. Kant rejects the notion that morality is about calculating consequences. When we act out of duty—doing something simply because it is right—only then do our actions have moral worth. Kant gives the example of a shopkeeper who passes up the chance to shortchange a customer only because his business might suffer if other customers found out. According to Kant, the shopkeeper’s action has no moral worth, because he did the right thing for the wrong reason.
Part 2 - The Supreme Principle of Morality Immanuel Kant says that insofar as our actions have moral worth, what confers moral worth is our capacity to rise above self-interest and inclination and to act out of duty. Sandel tells the true story of a thirteen-year old boy who won a spelling bee contest, but then admitted to the judges that he had, in fact, misspelled the final word. Using this story and others, Sandel explains Kant’s test for determining whether an action is morally right: to identify the principle expressed in our action and then ask whether that principle could ever become a universal law that every other human being could act on.

VOLUME 4

Lecture 07: A Lesson in Lying

Is it immoral to lie, even if it protects innocent life? What is a social contract and how does Rawls’s theory of justice work? What is a fair agreement and how do we know?

EPISODE 07 Part 1 – A Lesson in Lying Immanuel Kant believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, is a violation of one’s own dignity. Professor Sandel asks students to test Kant’s theory with this hypothetical case: if your friend were hiding inside your home, and a person intent on killing your friend came to your door and asked you where he was, would it be wrong to tell a lie? This leads to a video clip of one of the most famous, recent examples of dodging the truth: President Clinton talking about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
Part 2 – A Deal is a Deal Sandel introduces the modern philosopher, John Rawls, who argues that a fair set of principles would be those principles we would all agree to if we had to choose rules for our society and no one had any unfair bargaining power.

Lecture 08: What’s a Fair Start?

Everyone does not have the same start in life. So how do we handle that? Sandel recapitulates the different moral theories that they have covered so far and contrasts it with the perspective introduced by Rawls.

EPISODE 08 Part 1 – What's a False Start? Rawls argues that even meritocracy—a distributive system that rewards effort—doesn’t go far enough in leveling the playing field because those who are naturally gifted will always get ahead. Furthermore, says Rawls, the naturally gifted can’t claim much credit because their success often depends on factors as arbitrary as birth order. Sandel makes Rawls’s point when he asks the students who were first born in their family to raise their hands.
Part 2 – What Do We Deserve? Sandel discusses the fairness of pay differentials in modern society. He compares the salary of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ($200,000) with the salary of television’s Judge Judy ($25 million). Sandel asks, is this fair? According to John Rawls, it is not.

VOLUME 5

Lecture 09: Arguing Affirmative Action

Is increased diversity a valid moral goal and is affirmative action a just method of accomplishing it? What are the details of Aristotle’s theory of justice? How do values and goals relate to morality?

EPISODE 09 Part 1- Arguing Affirmative Action Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the school’s affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action. Should we try to correct for inequality in educational backgrounds by taking race into consideration? Should we compensate for historical injustices such as slavery and segregation? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one?
Part 2 - What's the Purpose? Sandel introduces Aristotle and his theory of justice. Aristotle disagrees with Rawls and Kant. He believes that justice is about giving people their due, what they deserve. When considering matters of distribution, Aristotle argues one must consider the goal, the end, the purpose of what is being distributed. The best flutes, for example, should go to the best flute players. And the highest political offices should go to those with the best judgment and the greatest

Lecture 10: The Good Citizen

What are the strengths and weaknesses with Aristotle’s ideas about morality? What is the purpose of golf and should people be able to use golf carts? Can Aristotelian morality handle individual rights? How do we reconcile his ideas about morality with his defense of slavery?

EPISODE 10 Part 1- The Good Citizen Aristotle believes the purpose of politics is to promote and cultivate the virtue of its citizens. The telos or goal of the state and political community is the “good life”. And those citizens who contribute most to the purpose of the community are the ones who should be most rewarded. But how do we know the purpose of a community or a practice? Aristotle’s theory of justice leads to a contemporary debate about golf. Sandel describes the case of Casey Martin, a disabled golfer, who sued the PGA after it declined his request to use a golf cart on the PGA Tour. The case leads to a debate about the purpose of golf and whether a player’s ability to “walk the course” is essential to the game.
Part 2 - Freedom Vs Fit How does Aristotle address the issue of individual rights and the freedom to choose? If our place in society is determined by where we best fit, doesn’t that eliminate personal choice? What if I am best suited to do one kind of work, but I want to do another? In this lecture, Sandel addresses one of the most glaring objections to Aristotle’s views on freedom—his defense of slavery as a fitting social role for certain human beings. Students discuss other objections to Aristotle’s theories and debate whether his philosophy overly restricts the freedom of individuals.

VOLUME 6

Lecture 11: The Claims of Community

This penultimate video introduces communitarianism. Are there other obligations besides respecting the freedom of other people? Do we have an obligation to membership, solidarity, and loyalty towards our family, country or society? Can these values conflict with larger moral values? Is patriotism something good or bad?

EPISODE 11 Part 1 – The Claims of Community Communitarians argue that, in addition to voluntary and universal duties, we also have obligations of membership, solidarity, and loyalty. These obligations are not necessarily based on consent. We inherit our past, and our identities, from our family, city, or country. But what happens if our obligations to our family or community come into conflict with our universal obligations to humanity?
Part 2 – Where Our Loyalty Lies Do we owe more to our fellow citizens that to citizens of other countries? Is patriotism a virtue, or a prejudice for one’s own kind? If our identities are defined by the particular communities we inhabit, what becomes of universal human rights?

Lecture 12: Debating Same-Sex Marriage

People have different ideas about morality and worth. How do you settle real-world discussions, such as same-sex marriage. Can we decide what rights other people should and should not have without reasoned argument about justice? Can the law be neutral on hard questions? Sandel ends this final lecture by encouraging people to debate moral issues rather than avoiding them.

EPISODE 12 Part 1 – Debating Same-Sex Marriage If principles of justice depend on the moral or intrinsic worth of the ends that rights serve, how should we deal with the fact that people hold different ideas and conceptions of what is good? Students address this question in a heated debate about whether same-sex marriage should be legal. Can we settle the matter without discussing the moral permissibility of homosexuality or the purpose of marriage?
Part 2 – The Good Life Sandel believes government can’t be neutral on difficult moral questions, such as same-sex marriage and abortion, and asks why we shouldn’t deliberate all issues—including economic and civic concerns—with that same moral and spiritual aspiration. In his final lecture, Professor Michael Sandel eloquently makes the case for a new politics of the common good. Engaging, rather than avoiding, the moral convictions of our fellow citizens may be the best way of seeking a just society.


These video lectures stand out in many important respects: the lecturer is highly pedagogical and extremely engaging, discusses important issues related to justice, makes time for student reaction and debate on a variety of issues and covers an extremely broad range of topics in such a small time.

If you are not all that familiar with the ethical underpinnings of political philosophy or just want a crash course on the history of moral thought, these video lectures are awesome.

PHIM MỸ

 

TARZAN 2013


BỒ MẸ EM KHÔNG CÓ NHÀ


MIDNIGHT SUN


KỲ NGHỈ HÈ BÁ ĐẠO


HÀI HƯỚC ÂU MỸ 2019


CÔ GÁI XINH ĐẸP CỦA TÔI


ANH DA ĐEN SIÊU LẦY

HOÁN ĐỔI SWITCHED







PHRASES AND IDIOMS_KIDS 01-16

 

01


02


03


04


05


06


07


08


09


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


NATURE AND ANIMALS 01-11

 

01


02


03


04


05


06


07


08


09


10


11


VOA60 20210512

 



Fighting between Hamas militants and Israeli forces intensifies.

 

Palestinian officials says Israeli airstrikes killed more than 50 Palestinians while Hamas rockets killed at least six Israelis.




Chinese officials says they hope the U.S. will be "fair" to Chinese companies after the U.S. moves to lift restrictions on the Chinese communications equipment company Xaomi.


The Philippines reports 287 Chinese ships entered the waters of its exclusive economic zone, calling the entries "illegal."


And Japanese officials cancel the Olypmic torch ceremony in the Fukuoka area because of the coronavirus state of emergency.

Giao tranh giữa các tay súng Hamas và lực lượng Israel ngày càng gia tăng.

 

Các quan chức Palestine cho biết các cuộc không kích của Israel đã giết chết hơn 50 người Palestine trong khi tên lửa của Hamas giết chết ít nhất 6 người Israel.

 

Các quan chức Trung Quốc nói rằng họ hy vọng Mỹ sẽ "công bằng" với các công ty Trung Quốc sau khi Mỹ có động thái dỡ bỏ các hạn chế đối với công ty thiết bị truyền thông Trung Quốc Xaomi.

 

Philippines báo cáo 287 tàu Trung Quốc đã đi vào vùng biển thuộc vùng đặc quyền kinh tế của mình, gọi các hành động này là "bất hợp pháp".

 

Và các quan chức Nhật Bản đã hủy bỏ lễ rước đuốc Olymic ở khu vực Fukuoka vì tình trạng khẩn cấp do coronavirus.


TARZAN 2013

1


2


3


4


5


6









NGỌC THU

ARTCANDY SHOP NGỌC THU -     Trên   bước   đường   THÀNH   CÔNG , không   có   dấu   chân   của   những   kẻ   LƯỜI   BIẾNG . ...