推 funjp: 指那個group 04/28 12:46
→ dunchee: "但文意好像不是"->這跟我們中文母語的人讀中文一樣，是 04/28 23:16
→ dunchee: 「順著」意思讀/理解整體文意，而不是一個字(/詞)一個字( 04/28 23:16
→ dunchee: ..）的在那裡拆解。「只看片段字面」的話確實會出現你講 04/28 23:16
→ dunchee: 的情形，只是一般(英文母語的)人本來就不是"那樣子"在閱 04/28 23:17
→ dunchee: 讀。他們已經習慣(一定程度複雜性的)這類"dangling 04/28 23:17
→ dunchee: modifier"(*1)。真正要達到"清楚的改寫"就只有拆開成多個 04/28 23:18
→ dunchee: 短句--每個短句清楚交待個別的主詞，名詞，... 04/28 23:18
→ dunchee: (*1) Webster's Dictionary of English Usage 有提到。這 04/28 23:18
→ dunchee: 也算是dangling modifier 04/28 23:18
謝謝
朋友說看下文可能是bombing campaign:
The bombing campaign, which has received logistical and intelligence
support from the United States, has drawn intense criticism for causing
civilian deaths and for appearing to be detached from a broad military
strategy.
可是這都隔段了
即使是NYTimes, dangling modifier可以這麼不清楚的嗎？
(我更好奇母語讀者是怎麼訓練這種超非記憶力的@ @")
※ 編輯: bbbtri (36.235.0.166), 04/28/2015 23:46:57
→ kaifrankwind: 是bombing campaign沒錯 讀到最後幾段看看 04/29 00:07
→ kaifrankwind: halt the bombings, which hit civilian targets w 04/29 00:08
→ kaifrankwind: ith a regularity that human rights groups said c 04/29 00:08
→ kaifrankwind: ould amount to war crimes. 04/29 00:08
→ kaifrankwind: 這事件的新聞也不是第一篇了 所以與其說開頭這樣的 04/29 00:10
→ kaifrankwind: 寫法是要求讀者解讀能力 不如說是要求有背景知識 04/29 00:11
→ bbbtri: 這個背景知識有點難度orz 04/29 00:16
→ bbbtri: 如果說Saudi Arabia said that it's devastating bombing 04/29 00:17
→ bbbtri: campaign was halting. <--這樣有符合SA發言人的原意嗎? 04/29 00:18
→ kaifrankwind: 我猜是有點偏...原句devastating是形容誤殺平民而 04/29 00:35
→ kaifrankwind: 違反道義的抽象面向 直接修飾bombing感覺像是這場轟 04/29 00:36
→ kaifrankwind: 炸(物理上)把當地街坊地景炸得面目全非...I'm not 04/29 00:37
→ kaifrankwind: sure... 04/29 00:38
→ bbbtri: 好的 謝謝！ 04/29 08:19