作者l10nel (小失)
看板Eng-Class
標題Re: [文法] 時態文法題
時間Fri Dec 14 05:04:52 2012
※ 引述《tijj (my two cents)》之銘言：
: ※ 引述《hopeliu (阿翔)》之銘言：
: : 某國中資優班文法題
: : Cathy: It is really tired.
: : Peter: Yes. If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we ____________ .
: : (a) will have worked in vain
: : (b) worked in vain yesterday
: : (c) will have worked in vain yesterday
: : (d) will have worked in vain today
: : 註in vain: 徒勞無功
: : 請問這題，答案a，
: : b選項錯誤的理由是？
: : 歡迎各種指教，
: : 謝謝每位大大。
: acd是屬於subjunctive/subjunctive
: b是屬於indicative/indicative
這一題四個選項的 if 條件句的動詞時態固定為 there is，這是 indicative mood
直述語氣的第三人稱簡單現在式。四個選項不同處在主句的動詞變化，但全部也都是
直述語氣，差別僅在 acd 是未來完成式，b 是過去式。
總之，abcd 全部是 indicative/indicative。
本題這型的條件句型完全不在 subjunctive mood 虛擬/假設語氣的適用範圍，
subjunctive 的動詞形態和適用場合有空再整理。這維基條目寫得很詳細：
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_subjunctive
或者這裡：
http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/subjuncterm05.htm
http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/Past-Subjunctive.htm
→ zofloya:1)If it rains tomorrow, we would have worked in vain 12/14 02:01
→ zofloya:yesterday. 12/14 02:01
注意這裡主句應是 we WILL have worked，不是 we WOULD have worked。前面的 rains
（不是 rained）和後面的 will 對應。
（補充）
推 l10nel:a最自然，bcd和a的差別在多了yesterday/today指出工作發生 12/13 14:35
→ l10nel:的時間，文法上都站得住腳，但自然度欠佳，具體原因我說不 12/13 14:36
→ l10nel:上來，但是bcd若將動詞worked改為名詞work就和a一樣自然： 12/13 14:38
→ l10nel:our work yesterday/today will have been in vain. 至於b 12/13 14:39
→ l10nel:的過去式worked和acd的未來完成式will have worked差別是， 12/13 14:40
→ l10nel:過去式語氣較篤定、強烈，will多了一層epistemic的情態意義 12/13 14:43
→ l10nel:所以語氣弱了一些。 12/13 14:44
推 l10nel:再補充一個in vain後面加了時間片語語感上不自然的原因： 12/13 14:58
→ l10nel:到
http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/搜尋will have [v*] in vain 12/13 15:03
→ l10nel:得到10筆，其中沒有in vain之後再接時間的。 12/13 15:07
原先想試著說一說為何認為 in vain 後再加時間片語在語感上不自然，但還是說不上來
，只用 COCA 語料作為「使用頻率」上的佐證。
恰巧剛剛在 linkedin 上一個叫 Grammar Geeks 的討論文法的社群，搜到大家竟然正在
討論同一類的句子，連結：
http://tinyurl.com/a6k7639
他們討論的是這句話：
If there is a strike tomorrow, we'll have worked in vain yesterday.
癥結：主要子句為何用 will？
在眾人的回應裡，我找到一些蛛絲馬跡，以下引用一些人關於「in vain 後面再加時間副
詞」這一點的「語感」：
(Steve Vasta)
Interesting. I don't have a problem with the verb in the second half of the
sentence -- "will have worked" is what we used to call Future Perfect, no? --
but the wording, taking in both "will" (future) and "yesterday" (past),
sounds off-kilter.
（這句話的說法，即 will 後面出現 yesterday，聽起來怪怪的）
The same tense mightn't have bothered you in this wording:
（使用同樣的時態，但改用以下的說法表達或許比較不怪）
If there is a strike tomorrow, our work yesterday will have been in vain.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
=> 這就是我之前所說的，將動詞 worked ... in vain yesterday 改成名詞 our work
yesterday 比較自然。
(Drew Ward)
With this being a realis conditional (non-hypothetical) construction, having
both 'is' and 'will' (I suppose it should actually be 'shall' as it's an outside
^^ ^^^^
force (the strike)) in indicative mode is correct.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
（因為這句話這是 realis conditional，是可能為真的條件句，動詞時態使用
indicative mood 直述語氣的 if there is ..., ...will 是對的。）
...
It seems to yield something like this:
(1) If there is a strike tomorrow, we [ will ] > [ [ have worked ] < [
yesterday ] < [ in vain ] ]. (messy!)
（原句的寫法，will have worked in vain yesterday 實際上的意義是：will have
worked yesterday in vain [強調 yesterday 修飾動詞 work]，但是這樣的寫法很
messy，容易令人混淆）
I think it's easier with Steve's version: （Steve 前面建議的寫法比較好）
"(If) { there is a strike tomorrow }, (then) { [ our work yesterday ] < [
will > [ have been < [ in vain ] ]. }"
=> 將 will have worked in vain yesterday 改成 our work yesterday，好多了。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 76.198.133.1
推 zofloya:so 1)If it rains tomorrow, we would have worked in 12/14 08:54
→ zofloya:vain yesterday. is an incorrect sentence? 12/14 08:55
'rains' indicates 'open condition', while 'would' (backshifted tense of
'will') is a clear marker for 'remote condition'. Mixing the two is
ill-advised, unless of course you intend to use 'would' to impart a sense of
politeness, indirectness or uncertainty, as though you were saying:
If it rains tomorrow, we will--I would think/suggest--have worked in vain
yesterday. (You either try to be polite in saying the work will have been
in vain or are less certain about the work being in vain in case of rain.)
※ 編輯: l10nel 來自: 76.198.133.1 (12/14 09:17)
※ 編輯: l10nel 來自: 76.198.133.1 (12/14 09:18)
※ 編輯: l10nel 來自: 76.198.133.1 (12/14 10:27)
→ zofloya:i thought I was asking about the uncertainty in the 12/14 10:35
→ zofloya:first place, wasn't I? @@ 12/14 10:35
→ l10nel:There are two senses of uncertainty involved here, 12/14 10:37
→ l10nel:don't you think? 12/14 10:38
1: Any situation involving an open condition, e.g. if P then Q, is uncertain
in the sense that the result Q is not yet determined due to the fact that P is
not determined. This isn't the uncertainty I was referring to.
2: The uncertainty of the speaker about the relation "if P then Q". This is
what I was talking about in contrasting 'will' and 'would'.
※ 編輯: l10nel 來自: 76.198.133.1 (12/14 10:47)
→ zofloya:yes, so does "would have +pp" indicate uncertainty 12/14 10:40
→ zofloya:here? 12/14 10:40
→ zofloya:or it's just incorrect in this context? 12/14 10:41
→ zofloya:i mean, the context tijj provided above 12/14 10:42
→ l10nel:would have worked in vain: 我們或許就做白工了 12/14 10:50
推 zofloya:okay, got it 12/14 10:51
→ l10nel:will have worked in vain 我們就做白工了 12/14 10:51
→ l10nel:we worked in vain 我們鐵定是做白工了 XD 12/14 10:51
→ zofloya:this is what i wanted to make sure in tijj's response 12/14 10:53
→ zofloya:article above. thanks a lot 12/14 10:53
→ l10nel:I see that now :) 12/14 10:55
→ l10nel:仍要強調rains+would的組合少用為妙,還沒看到文法書的認可 12/15 05:30