看板 Eng-Class 關於我們 聯絡資訊
(已39位詢問我針對蛇咬句的合法與標準性,在我回答第40位前,還是公開回好了) Concerning the sentence 'What would you do when you were bitten by a snake?' someone poses a scenario below and believes 'when' in (1) is grammatical and is Standard English, to express a hypothetical or counterfactual meaning: [ http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1366231612.A.EAD.html l10nel's post on Apr 18 cited ] BUt, I think the when clause in (1) is ungrammatical (or non-standard) even though I might guess that is probably an IF clause. When, in reality, hearing (1) I WILL say, what do you mean by that? ... 'when you were bitten by a snake?' wut??? May I have your judgment regarding the when clause in (1)? 以上,請教幾位國際知名PI, 有麻省理工語言學系教授、 人文藝術社會科學院副院長兼語言學系教授、普林斯頓大學 語言學教授、及文法書作者比利時魯汶大學Declerck教授. 回答如下. 1. I agree with you that "were" in (1) is nonstandard (deviant for me). Robert Freidin Professor of Linguistics Princeton University 2. Right agree, (1) isn't acceptable for me. Adele E. Goldberg Professor of Linguistics Princeton University 3. No for Standard English and (1) is ungrammatical. Suzanne Flynn Professor of Linguistics Department of Linguistics & Philosophy Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4. The example in (1) is ungrammatical. Kai von Fintel Associate Dean of the School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences Professor of Linguistics Department of Linguistics & Philosophy Massachusetts Institute of Technology http://mit.edu/fintel/cv.pdf 5. Lionel's sentence (1) is ungrammatical in the context sketched, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and I cannot imagine any context in which it would be grammatical. I stick to what I wrote in my reply to your previous e-mail. (An adapted version of 'What would you do when you were bitten by a snake?' is all right when used as an indirect question, as when you report 'What will you do when you are bitten by a snake?' (which presupposes that you will be bitten) as 'He asked you what you would do when you were bitten by a snake.') I received an e-mail from Lionel some time ago but did not find the time to reply to it. He argues that I myself have written that when can sometimes be used instead of if. This is true, but only in very exceptional cases and certainly not in (1). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Renaat Declerck 謝謝Declerck教授的証實. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 60.245.65.216
Chengheong:謝謝Declerck教授的証實. 05/02 21:13
polylemma:英文好難~~~ 05/02 21:15
sitifan:http://tinyurl.com/brcufgx 05/02 21:16
Tiunn: 05/03 11:03
paulchi:他剛po出來時我沒細看 只以為是單純拿我的例子來變化 05/03 13:59
paulchi:又看一次才發現 (1)的確不行 如教授們所說 context不好 05/03 14:00
paulchi:相對來說 (2)就可以 因為不是too far-fetched 05/03 14:02
paulchi:不過話說回來那核爆的例子 就語感上我會給它過 05/03 14:09
paulchi:所以說到底 對我來說 這跟it's raining soon一樣 05/03 14:10
paulchi:都在灰色地帶 口語英文都容易滑出口 05/03 14:11
paulchi:都是passable English 我願意在生活中使用 05/03 14:13
paulchi:當然這種態度會被Il0之流攻擊 (甚至可能寫篇長篇大論來罵 05/03 14:14
paulchi:to which I don't really give a fk. :-) 05/03 14:15
tijj:Paul,我還是覺你第二篇還是指factuality,您的兩篇其實是一樣 05/03 14:24
tijj::) 05/03 14:24
sneak: 當然這種態度會被Il0 https://daxiv.com 09/07 00:22
sneak: 都在灰色地帶 口語英文 https://daxiv.com 12/02 18:34
muxiv: 謝謝Declerck教 http://yaxiv.com 04/13 22:54