41901 (Особенности перевода неологизмов), страница 11

61. Полякова Т.Ю., Синявская Е.В., Селезнева Г.А. Достижения науки и техники XX века. Изд-во: Высшая школа, 2004. - 288 с.

62. Полякова Т.Ю., Синявская Е.В., Тынкова О.И., Улановская Э. С.

Английский язык для инженеров. Изд-во: Высшая школа, 2003. - 464 с.

63. Пумпянский А.Л. Введение в практику перевода научной и технической литературы на английский язык. - М.: Наука, 2005. - 304 с.

64. Разинкина Н.М. Развитие языка английской научной литературы. - М.: Наука, 2006. - 212 с.

65. Рейман Е.А. О нетерминологической лексике научных текстов // Особенности стиля научного изложения. - М.: 2006. - С.178-191.

66. Реформатский А.А. Что такое термин и терминология // Вопросы терминологии (Материалы Всесоюзного терминологического совещания). - М.: Издательство АН СССР, 2001. - С.46-54

67. Рябцева Э.Г. Опыт описания оценочного компонента лексического значения слова // Проблемы семантической структуры и функционирования лексических единиц (на материале романо-германских языков): Сб. науч. тр. - Иваново: Изд-во Иванов. ун-та, 2002. - С.118-127.

68. Скороходько Э.Ф. Вопросы перевода английской технической литературы (перевод терминов). - Киев: Изд-во Киевского университета, 2004. - 91 с.

69. Сорокин Ю.А. Переводоведение: статус переводчика и психогерменевтические процедуры. Изд-во: Гнозис, 2004. - 160 с.

70. Страхова B. C. Грамматическое описание как вид текста // Язык как коммуникативная деятельность человека: Сб. науч. тр. / МГПИИЯ им.М. Тореза. - Вып.284. - М: Изд-во МГПИИЯ им.М. Тореза, 2005. - С.42-48.

71. Судовцев В.А. Научно-техническая информация и перевод. - М.: 2002. - 231 с.

72. Суперанская А.В. и др. Общая терминология: Вопросы теории. - М.: Наука, 2002. - 243 с.

73. Степанов Ю.С. Основы общего языкознания. - М.: Просвещение, 2005. - 271 с.

74. Стрелкова Н.С. Практическая стилистика английского языка и стилистическое редактирование переводов. - М.: 2004. - С.9.

75. Татаринов В.А. Методология научного перевода. К основаниям теории конвертации. - М.: 2007. - 384 с.

76. Татаринов В.А. Теория терминоведения. Т.1. - М.: Московский лицей, 2006. - 311с.

77. Тихонов А.А. Английский язык. Теория и практика перевода. - М.: 2005. - 120 c.

78. Федоров А.В. Основы общей теории перевода (лингвистический очерк). - М.: 2002 - 225 с.

79. Felber H. Terminology Manual. Paris, Infoterm, 2004, - 426 p.

80. Leech G. N. Principles of pragmatics. L., N. Y. Longman Inc., 2003 - 190 р.

Список лексикографических источников:

1. Большой англо-русский политехнический словарь = The comprehensive English-Russian scientific and technical dictionary: В 2-х т // СМ. Баринов и др.: М.: Руссо, 2003. - Т. I - 701 с; Т. II - 718 с.

2. Борисов А.Б. Большой экономический словарь: 10 000 терминов. - М.: Книжный мир, 2003. - 895 с.

3. Климзо Б.Н. Русско-английский словарь слов и словосочетаний, используемых в научно-технической литературе. - М: "ЭТС", 2001. - Т.1. - 648 с., Т.2. - 336 с.

4. Мурашкевич А.М. Англо-русский словарь по авиационному оборудованию и бортовым системам. В 2 томах. Том 1. Буквы A-M. Том 2. Буквы N-Z. 2003. - Около 45000 терминов.

5. Мурашкевич А.М. Англо-русский словарь по бизнесу и технике воздушного транспорта / English-Russian Dictionary on Air Transport Business and Technology. Изд-во: НВК-Инвест, 2003 - 602с.

6. Пивовар А.Г. Большой финансово-экономический словарь. - М.: Экзамен, 2000. - 1064 с.

7. Рябцева Н.К. Научная речь на английском языке: руководство по научному изложению. Словарь оборотов и сочетаемости общенаучной лексики: Новый словарь-справочник активного типа (на английском языке), 2006. - 243 с.

8. Современный англо-русский политехнический словарь / Modern English-Russian Polytechnical Dictionary Изд-во: Вече, 2007. - 445с.

9. Циммерман М., Веденеева К. Русско-английский научно-технический словарь переводчика. М.: Наука, 1993. - 735 с.

10. McGraw-Hill Sybil P. Parker MCGraw-Hill Dictionary of scientific and technical terms, 2002. - 2380 р.

11. Roshan McArthur, Tom McArthur Oxford Companion To English Language. Изд-во: Oxford University Press, 1996. - 1072 р.

Приложение

Text 1

On My Mind

By Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren, senior fellows at the Cato Institute.

Hooked on Subsidies

Why conservatives should join the left"s campaign against nuclear power.

when it comes to politics, we don"t often find ourselves in agreement with Bonnie Raitt or Graham Nash. But now that they are campaigning against new nuclear plants, they"re our friends. Raitt, Nash, the Indigo Girls and other vocal rockers are attacking a provision in pending Senate legislation that would award what they call "massively expensive loan guarantees-potentially a virtual blank check from taxpayers" for nuclear power plant construction.

Even without the new legislation there"s plenty of federal money being doled out. In September NRG Energy, an energy wholesaler in Princeton, N. J., applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to build and operate a two-reactor nuclear plant near Bay City, Tex. The NRC is expecting 19 similar applications in the next 18 months. If approved, they will be eligible for loan guarantees under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Pro-nuclear groups herald the coming flood of applications as proof that nuclear energy makes economic sense. Nonsense. The only reason investors are interested: government handouts. Absent those subsidies, investor interest would be zero.

A cold-blooded examination of the industry"s numbers bears this out. Tufts economist Gilbert Metcalf concludes that the total cost of juice from a new nuclear plant today is 4.31 cents per kilowatt-hour. That"s far more than electricity from a conventional coal-fired plant (3.53 cents) or "clean coal" plant (3.55 cents). When he takes away everyone"s tax subsidies, however, Metcalf finds that nuclear power is even less competitive (5.94 cents per kwh versus 3.79 cents and 4.37 cents, respectively).

Nuclear energy investments are riskier than investments in coal - or gas-fired electricity. High upfront costs and long construction times mean investors have to wait years to get their money back. The problem here is not just the cost per watt, several times that of a gas plant, but the fact that nuclear plants are big. Result: The upfront capital investment can be 10 to 15 times as great as for a smallgas-fired turbine.

A nuclear plant"s costs are not only higher but more uncertain. Investors have to worry that completion will take place late-or never (witness the abandonment of the reactor at Shoreham, N. Y). Accordingly, nuclear power would have to be substantially cheaper than coal - or gas-fired power to get orders in a free market.

So why does NRG want to build a nuclear plant in Texas? Two factors are in play. First, the license costs a relatively small amount compared with the cost of construction. Second, the federal government would guarantee up to 100% of the $6.5 billion to $8.5 billion NRG might borrow from capital markets (as long as it doesn"t exceed 80% of the project cost). Without such guarantees no investor would lend significant amounts of capital to NRG.

How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don"t.governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors.

The only nuclear plant built in a liberalized-energy economy in the last decade was one ordered in Finland in 2004. The Finnish plant was built on 60-year purchase contracts signed by electricity buyers, by a firm (the French Areva) that scarcely seems to be making good money on the deal.

What, then, should government do to overcome nuclear"s economic problems? Absolutely nothing. There is no more to the right-wing case for nuclear subsidies than there is to the left-wing case for solar subsidies.

If the permitting process is broken, then by all means fix it. If plant safety regulations are excessive, then by all means reform them. If greenhouse gas emissions prove to be a problem, then impose a reasonable carbon tax across the board. But once those tasks are complete, the role for government ends.

We like nuclear power as much as anyone else on the right. But friends don"t let friends get hooked on subsidies. We"re glad to see Raitt and her rocker compadres agree.

Text 2

GREEKS BEARING GIFTS

Innocents at Home

When foreign firms list in the U. S., how well are American investors protected? Not very, if one nasty takeover battle is any indication | By Neil Weinberg

ERIC SEMLER, WHO RUNS A NEW YORK City hedge fund, invests in media and communications companies. One failed deal sticks in his craw, and Semler has gone to federal court in New York City for restitution. He claims that two private equity firms, Texas Pacific Group and Арах Partners, committed securities fraud by driving down the stock price of a Greek company listed on Nasdaq that his fund had a stake in and hiding a potentially higher takeover offer.

The lessons for investors: Just because a foreign company is listed on an American exchange doesn"t mean you are afforded every protection.

"We"re not the sort of guys who are looking to pick a fight," Semler says. "But when someone comes in and steals something from us it"s very frustrating." He claims his fund, TCS Capital Management, was shortchanged $108 million. Texas Pacific Group ($30 billion in investor assets) and Арах in London ($20 billion) decline comment.

Their motion to dismiss the suit, however, speaks volumes. It says the buyout was a purely foreign affair to which U. S. securities laws do not apply. If TCS is to prevail under U. S. law, it will have to convince a federal judge there is clear evidence of securities fraud.

"If they trade on Nasdaq and cheat U. S. investors, it doesn"t matter where the company is incorporated. U. S. securities law applies," says lawyer Howard Kaplan, who is representing TCS.

The shootout involves TIM Hellas, formerly Greece"s third-largest wireless phone company. Sender"s hedge fund started investing in it in early 2004 and eventually put up $83 million, or $18.30 a share, for a 5.3% stake. Semler says TIM Hellas was trading at half the average multiple of European wireless firms. Telecom Italia owned 81% of TIM (short for Telecom Italia Mobile) Hellas at the time. Semler figured, a bit naively, that worst-case the Italian parent would buy out the rest of the minority investors at a modest premium. Instead, in April 2005 Texas Pacific and Арах announced a definitive agreement to buy Telecom Italia"s stake for $22 a share (a 3% premium to previous day trading), valuing the company"s stock at $1.9 billion.

While the offer would have handed Semler a small profit, he felt it was a low-ball by as much as $10 a share, compared with what cell firms were trading for on the Continent. In August 2005, shortly before minority shareholders were set to get bought out, Semler asked TIM Hellas" TPG-Apax-controlled board to appoint an independent fairness committee to assess the price.

The board, in a proxy statement filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission, declared the merger price fair. After all, it had gotten a fairness opinion from what it described as "independent investment bank" Morgan Stanley-a firm that had earned $40 million from Texas Pacific and Арах the previous two years. The board also informed minority investors that it would not follow the U. S. practice of establishing a special committee to assess the fairness of the deal: "Greek law does not provide appraisal rights in connection with the merger," it said.

The proxy also noted that an unnamed "potential investor"-later revealed to be Egyptian telecom mogul Naguib Sawiris - had expressed interest in putting in a competing bid that might have resulted in an offer of $26 a share. However, the proxy referred to Sawiris" bid as "highly conditional," and TIM Hellas" owners rejected it.

Another wrinkle: TIM Hellas later told the SEC that TPG and Арах had over the past two years offered Telecom Italia as much as 20 euros a share (now worth $29) for TIM Hellas but were rebuffed. The buyers say Telecom Italia accepted the lower offers because TlM"s fortunes were declining. Semler is arguing that the missing link is a grab bag of goodies, like handsets, that Telecom Italia is selling to TIM Hellas.

Semler was infuriated further when he learned that TPG and Арах bought out Q-Telecom, Greeces fourth-largest cell carrier, for 14.3 times annualized trailing earnings. That means shareholders of Q-Te\ecom - would receive 2.8 times the multiple their shell company, Troy, was paying TIM Hellas investors. The new owners quickly merged TIM Hellas with Q-Telecom and revamped management and marketing. Then, in February, they flipped the company to Sawiris for $4.4 billion, making an 80% profit on TIM Hellas in 20 months. Their adviser on the deal: Morgan Stanley. Now both Арах and TPG are considering buying a stake in Sawiris firm, the Wall Street Journal reported in October. Sawiris declines comment.

Text 3

THE FUNDS

AMERICAN CENTURY ULTRA IS STRUGgling. During the go-go 1990s, the flagship fund of American Century Investments was synonymous with stellar growth stocks. Ultra, along with companions Select and Growth, ran up annual returns of 20% to 40% by owning hot stocks like MCI WorldCom and Lucent Technologies. Then came the end of the bubble. Ultra, like most funds chasing big growth stocks, crashed.

There are two things that a money management firm can do when it finds itself in this predicament. One is to stick to its strategy, inevitably losing assets as customers desert it near the bottom but at least positioning itself to participate in the rebound. The other is to panic and change direction. Ultra panicked.