但在同樣資料來(lái)源的另一些條標(biāo)中,“施行日期”卻是被譯作“Effective Date”了,如:
8.Article 66(Effective Date)
-Shanghai's Foreign Economic Rules and Regulations(1993-1994), p.267
9.Article 19(Effective Date)
-Ibid., p.343
10.Adrticle 28(Effective Date)
-Supplement(Chinese-English)New Laws and Regulations
Monthly, 1997.1, p.121
11.Article 39(Effective Date)
-Ibid., p.179
12.Article 14(Effective Date)
-Ibid., p.192
上述,“施行日期”這一條標(biāo)的同名異譯,殊無(wú)并存之理由,而頗有統(tǒng)一的必要。其中可取的當(dāng)然不是“Date of Implementation”而是“Effective Date”——因?yàn)樽鳛闂l標(biāo),“Effective Date”從哪方面考量,也要比“Date of Implementation”強(qiáng),您說(shuō)呢?
8.Article 66(Effective Date)
-Shanghai's Foreign Economic Rules and Regulations(1993-1994), p.267
9.Article 19(Effective Date)
-Ibid., p.343
10.Adrticle 28(Effective Date)
-Supplement(Chinese-English)New Laws and Regulations
Monthly, 1997.1, p.121
11.Article 39(Effective Date)
-Ibid., p.179
12.Article 14(Effective Date)
-Ibid., p.192
上述,“施行日期”這一條標(biāo)的同名異譯,殊無(wú)并存之理由,而頗有統(tǒng)一的必要。其中可取的當(dāng)然不是“Date of Implementation”而是“Effective Date”——因?yàn)樽鳛闂l標(biāo),“Effective Date”從哪方面考量,也要比“Date of Implementation”強(qiáng),您說(shuō)呢?

