作者tijj (my two cents)
看板Eng-Class
標題Re: [文法] ____ it rains, go into the building.
時間Thu Feb 16 10:20:02 2012
推 Soulchild:It is raining soon的爭議應該是在於此句表示說者能決定 02/07 02:47
→ Soulchild:會下雨(但事實上自然下雨的情況can't be planned 於是違 02/07 02:48
→ Soulchild:反了futurate前提) 而It will rain soon或It's going to 02/07 02:49
→ Soulchild:rain soon本來就沒有表示說者有決定會下雨的authority 02/07 02:50
順便回你,之前沒回,因我實在覺得沒啥好回的,而非: 故意不回.
Tina: statement 1
只要Mary認同statement 1, 就是certainty. 她就應該用when.
無關statement 1到底是否為正確預測推斷. 也
無關說者是否能決定到底會不會下雨, 因為本來就沒有任何人可以決定到底會不會下雨.
it's raining soon 的意思本來就不是一定一定一定會下雨.
不知道為何你會有這種問題,
不知道為何有人一直要講,當說出it's raining soon這句話時,
這句的本意就是指: 一定會下雨. 說者難道是雨神?
至於為何用when較好? 已有5位教授回答.
→ Soulchild:請先釐清"It's raining soon"的問題之後再來討論吧 02/15 23:01
1.
You can say that because rain is a certainty, the issue is "when," rather
than "if," because "if" implies a question about whether or not there will be
rain, and here there is no question.
Professor Maria Damon
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
2.
Yes. Soon is the adverb that tells you that it WILL rain sometime in the
future. Thus, "When" is correct.
Professor Esther Schor
Princeton University
3.
I suppose that "It is raining soon" states definitely that rain will fall, so
that the coming rain is not an "if" but a "when." In conversation, you could
hear either, though..
Professor Nicholas Watson
Harvard University
4.
"It is raining soon" means that it is not yet raining, but will be soon.
Therefore, answer A ("Because") is wrong, since the sentence "Because it
rains, go into the building" implies that it is already raining. Answer C
(If) is wrong, since the sentence "If it rains, go into the building"
suggests that it might rain, whereas you know that it is definitely going to
rain. ANswer D (However) is wrong, because the sentence "However it rains, go
into the building," does not make much sense. Therefore B is the best answer.
Professor James Wood
Harvard University
5.
B is the only possible answer; the other possibilities produce incorrect
syntax.
Professor James Simpson
Harvard University
-----------------分隔線-----------------
tengharold:Does this sentence make sense? "It is raining soon."
tengharold:It doesn't make sense to me, but I can't find a grammar
tengharold:rule against it.
→ Soulchild:這原本就不是口語用法或正式用法的問題 這是語意上產生 02/15 23:02
→ Soulchild:爭議的句子 如果說還是不懂的話 就先思考以下這個句子 02/15 23:03
→ Soulchild:"The Knicks are defeating the Lakers tomorrow"的含意 02/15 23:03
我覺不用了, 要也是可以, Copley論文(The Plan's the Thing)第2頁,
(1)b. # The Red Sox defeat the Yankees tomorrow.
(2)b. # The Red Sox are defeating the Yankees tomorrow.
The sentences in (1b) and (2b) improve markedly in a context where
it is presupposed that the winner can be decided ahead of time, for
instance, if we are allowed to consider the possibility that someone
has fixed the game.
如果你看不懂可以去問你的英文老師.
還要辯嗎? 甚至"The Plan's the Thing" 存不存在文法錯的問題?
這是完美符合標準文法嗎?
目前我看不出你舉了任何例證,就隨便丟個兩三篇,強調好像你比較看得懂Copley的論文
辯論不是這樣辯的!
我甚至懷疑你真得是本科系要鑽研語言學嗎?
沒錯,Copley的論文是我提出的,但是tengharold並沒有回答我先提出的問題
1.future orientation是否存在比重高低問題?future orientation絕對絕對絕對不存在?
2. It is raining tomorrow/soon兩者皆可解讀為may !?
要辯語言學可以,但希望程度不要落差太大. 我有我的credit, 不用你來認可我!
我不想打迷糊戰, 就直接挑戰原句(it is raining soon). 你不敢嗎?
It is raining soon. "這是語意上產生爭議的句子" ??? !!!
6.
Yes, "It is raining soon" could be said and make perfect sense depending
on context.
Professor John Watkins
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
如所說是爭議的句子, 結果Prof Watkins居然還在make perfect sense.
6位教授實在是錯的亂七八糟 !
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 210.69.13.1
推 sayhitome:Wow~ double choc brownie points for ya'll 02/16 11:13
推 stevepohan:整串討論看下來 我也比較認同你的看法 02/16 12:01
→ stevepohan:也認為理解上是可以接受的 不過在於speaker方面 02/16 12:02
→ stevepohan:這樣的情境下 會不會比較習慣的用法是is going to? 02/16 12:04
→ stevepohan:另比賽快結束時 蠻常聽到某某隊are winning的用法的 02/16 12:11
推 tengharold:考試時有何情境？ 02/17 00:53
→ tengharold:今天問題在於這一句話就是在沒有情境的狀況下講的 02/17 00:56
→ tengharold:更正，有一個情境，那就是 "現在我要考你文法" 02/17 00:57
→ tengharold:把這一個情境提供回去給教授，我認為他們都會同意這題 02/17 00:58
→ tengharold:出的很糟。明明就可以出 It'll rain soon 這種毫無爭 02/17 00:59
→ tengharold:議性的句子，偏偏要在那裏畫蛇添足的it's raining soon 02/17 01:00
→ tengharold:對了，grammar rule against it 我後來找到了 XD 02/17 01:02
→ tengharold:steve大，理解上這句話沒什問題，我在爭的是這句話非 02/17 01:03
→ tengharold:正確英文因此不該出現在英文考卷上。 02/17 01:04
→ tengharold:如果我來句中文考題 02/17 01:05
→ tengharold:甲：今天我要下雨。 02/17 01:05
→ tengharold:乙：__下雨就進屋內。a: 如果、b: 應該 ... 02/17 01:06
→ tengharold:問你會不會答？當然會。答時會不會覺得甲在講什鬼話？ 02/17 01:07
→ tengharold:應該也會。有沒有情境可以把甲講的話合理化？有。考試 02/17 01:08
→ tengharold:時有沒有那些情境？沒有。您能不能就中文文法來解釋為 02/17 01:10
→ tengharold:何甲講的話有問題？不能。 02/17 01:10
推 leoblack:考試有何情境?!考題不就叫做"情境對話"嘛!? 02/17 01:15
推 leoblack:甲:待會快要馬上即將就要下雨了耶 02/17 01:21
→ leoblack:乙：__下雨就進屋內。a: 如果、b: 應該 ... 02/17 01:21
→ leoblack:的確也能作答~且會覺得甲贅詞怎麼這麼多~但可以"理解"甲 02/17 01:22
→ leoblack:想要表達其迫切性~這類貼近生活用語的出題現在比比皆是 02/17 01:22
推 leoblack:我只會覺得這老師出題出不好~但不會因此就要老師題目送分 02/17 01:25
→ Soulchild:如果要引用Copley的文章請引用完全，似乎你還少引用了前 02/20 21:09
→ Soulchild:面幾句她對那兩句(b) examples的語意提出的看法 02/20 21:10
→ Soulchild:the (b) examples, however, are decidedly odd. By 02/20 21:10
→ Soulchild:comparison, there is nothing odd about (3)"The Red 02/20 21:11
→ Soulchild:Sox will defeat the Yankees tomorrow." The oddness 02/20 21:11
→ Soulchild:of (1b) and (2b), as compared to (3), seems to stem 02/20 21:11
→ Soulchild:from the fact that the winner of a baseball game is 02/20 21:11
→ Soulchild:(usually) not decided ahead of time. 接著就是你引用 02/20 21:13
→ Soulchild:的那段。我所提出要你思考的那句就是從(b) examples改編 02/20 21:13
→ Soulchild:的，難道我會看不懂嗎? 要你思考的東西也就在這一段裡面 02/20 21:14
→ Soulchild:也就是 Why can the oddness of the 2 problematic 02/20 21:14
→ Soulchild:sentences be ameliorated if we can presuppose that 02/20 21:15
→ Soulchild:the fix is in? 結果你斷章取義之後有提出你的想法嗎? 02/20 21:15
→ Soulchild:沒有!只有一大堆毫不尊重他人的言論，這就是你口口聲聲 02/20 21:16
→ Soulchild:所說的辯論!?提出那句要你思考也是希望能引導你了解我們 02/20 21:17
→ Soulchild:所提的，所謂的"It's raining soon"的"語意"問題，否則 02/20 21:17
→ Soulchild:要如何討論?請仔細思考Copley所寫的那段文章，然後再去 02/20 21:18
→ Soulchild:思考Prof Watkins所說的"It is raining soon" could be 02/20 21:18
→ Soulchild:said and make perfect sense depending on context. 02/20 21:19
→ Soulchild: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 02/20 21:20
→ Soulchild:還有如果你沒有誠意回答問題就不要回答，既浪費你的時間 02/20 21:20
→ Soulchild:回文也浪費我的時間看你的文。 02/20 21:20