作者hopeliu (阿翔)
看板Eng-Class
標題Re: [考題] What would you do _____?
時間Wed Apr 10 02:43:59 2013
※ 引述《Darren37 (小巴)》之銘言：
: 版上的學長/姐好
: 小弟有個問題想請教一下
: 題目：
: What would you do ________?
: (A) when you were bitten by a snake
: (B) if he lied to you
: (C) were you in my position
: (D) if you are in the elevator and it stops between floors
: (E) if you had lost your power of sight for just one day
: 依據題目是與 現在事實相反之假設
: 所以B對 而C是B的倒裝句 這兩個選項沒有問題
: D、E時態上很明顯就錯了
: 我想請問的是A選項
: 以中文翻譯是： 當你被蛇咬時，你會做什麼？
: 請問文法上是錯在哪裡呢？
推 l10nel:when也可帶出假設句，功能類似if，(a)選項would...were代表 04/06 09:00
→ l10nel:未來機會很小的假設(remote/tentative/hypothetical)。 04/06 09:02
請教l10nel大，
若(a)針對remote/tentative/hypothetical層面來看，
這裡的"機會很小"是指跟(1)、(2)相比? 亦即,是(1)、(2)的remote句子?
(1) What would you do when you are bitten by a snake?
(2) What will you do when you are bitten by a snake?
謝謝
→ l10nel:by snake是漏抄了a => by a snake。但(a)選項更適用於一個 04/06 09:05
→ l10nel:在談論過去事情的語境，when表時間，因為這點，猜測(a)不會 04/06 09:07
→ l10nel:列為出題人設想的"標準"答案。 04/06 09:08
:所以 大大的意思是 when...were 雖然是表示假設語氣 但是表達的是對過去的假設的
:意思嗎?
:不過這樣子 就不算是假設了 只算是個問句 當你過去被蛇咬時 你做了什麼...
◢▆▅▄▃ ╰(〒皿〒)╯ ▃▄▅▆◣
:※ 編輯: Darren37 來自: 114.27.190.177 (04/06 11:04)
→ yangivy:也想問110的意思是 when也可帶出與事實相反的假設？ 04/06 11:48
→ yangivy:例如 When I were you, I would...這是正常的句子？ 04/06 11:49
→ yangivy:還是就如字典寫的considering that,用在以條件為主的假定 04/06 11:53
→ yangivy:狀況？ 04/06 11:55
→ l10nel:Darren37:一個可能意思,是對未來的假設,不是過去. 這意思, 04/06 13:50
→ l10nel:現在式are bitten更常見. 04/06 13:50
→ l10nel:另一個意思就是你說的,對過去的描述,這就不是假設. 04/06 13:52
推 l10nel:yangivy:這是未來不知是否發生的事,所以不該說與"事實"相反 04/06 14:01
→ l10nel:這是對未來的假設,不同於considering that是對事實的判斷. 04/06 14:03
推 leoblack:我以為應該用What would you do when you had been 04/06 21:47
→ leoblack:bitten by a snake. 04/06 21:48
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 58.114.184.193
推 l10nel:不要把重點放在比較不同說法裡，事件發生的絕對機率高低， 04/10 06:15
→ l10nel:畢竟被蛇咬這件事，如果處在同一現實狀況，真正發生的機率 04/10 06:16
→ l10nel:不會因為說話用了哪個字而有所改變。畢竟，那tentativeness 04/10 06:17
→ l10nel:是存在說話者心裡，我們只要知道would指非過去事件時，表達 04/10 06:20
→ l10nel:出這tentativeness就好; 兩子句時態最好一致; if比when常用 04/10 06:26
→ tijj:套一句hoch博士說的話. 聽不負責任建議 倒不如記得要跟母語 04/10 10:49
→ tijj:人士教授確認(A)的合法性. 04/10 10:49
→ tijj:以R/T/H來看,(A)不宜跟(1)、(2)比較,是因為它是 04/10 10:49
→ tijj:ungrammatical (*) . 這才是重點. 04/10 10:50
→ zofloya:why is it ungrammatical? could you explain to me? i 04/10 11:13
→ zofloya:am really interested and eager to learn about it 04/10 11:14
→ zofloya:it sounds okay to me, though i don't know how to 04/10 11:14
→ zofloya:analyze it 04/10 11:15
→ hopeliu:好。謝謝t大指導。 04/10 22:25
→ tijj:Then I guess you are not an English speaker; otherwise A) 04/11 10:13
→ tijj:should contradict your ears, which is the best and 04/11 10:14
→ tijj:easiest explanation. 04/11 10:15
→ tijj::) 04/11 10:15
→ zofloya:indeed, i am not, aside from my poor ears, any more 04/11 11:58
→ zofloya:specific grammatical rules for this sentence? 04/11 11:58
→ tijj:Instead, I would say in your grammatical book are 04/11 17:35
→ tijj:important statements that illustrate t/r/h situations. 04/11 17:35