推 hopeliu:哇．．．． 做筆記 Orz 12/16 00:28
推 hopeliu:真是反差大 同一題我在toeic板問 只有一個回答 而且感覺 12/16 00:39
→ hopeliu:有點看答案講題目 Eng-Class板的收穫較多 12/16 00:40
※ 引述《l10nel (小失)》之銘言：
: ※ 引述《tijj (my two cents)》之銘言：
: : 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。
我請在台灣的女兒問老師,結果也是這樣被教,我就幫大家問一問好了.
>Professor Williams,
>
>My daughter's english teacher said these three are completely indicative
>forms, and they should be determined ONLY by the structure, rather than
>the meaning.
>
>1)If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain.
>2)If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain today.
>3)If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain yesterday.
We classify as "indicative" any sentence that makes a statement. Because
the sample sentences include a statement, they could be classified as
indicative. The problem is that the statements in these sentences are
based on a conditional and on this account are more accurately classified
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
as being in the subjunctive mood, not the indicative. Your daughter's
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ------------------- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
English teacher is quite incorrect, however, in suggesting that the meaning
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
can be separated from the structure. Indeed, formal semantics deals
particularly with just this type of construction by considering the truth
conditions of the two parts of the sentence. We might, for example, use
predicate logic to analyze Sentence 1 as:
ョxE(x) Λ ョw → V(w)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A simple truth table shows that "we will have worked in vain" is true
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
only if "there is an earthquake tomorrow."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
As I indicated in my book, linguists have not used traditional grammar
since the late 19th century. It is unfortunate that so many English
teachers, in the US and around the world, have not noticed.
Regards,
James D. Williams, Ph.D.
Professor of Rhetoric & Linguistics
Soka University
http://faculty.soka.edu/jwilliams/research.htm
: 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，
The Teacher's Grammar Book by James D. Williams
http://0rz.tw/O6udP
每個人可以各有主張與學派,但應該不要「先」斷言 "完全不在subjunctive的適用範圍".
我不會覺得Williams教授講的就一定對, 但是, 是值得參考的.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.32.55.93