推 enggys: 語意有巧妙的差別... 用 "we are going to" 暗示已經成團 01/28 10:15
→ enggys: 了, 即使妳不能來, 也計畫好要作些什麼事情了. 用 "we we 01/28 10:15
→ enggys: re going to" 暗示還差妳一個才能成團, 如果妳不來, 原本 01/28 10:15
→ enggys: 計畫好的事情就不能作了. 後者能表達出較強的期待, 加上 01/28 10:15
→ enggys: 一點情緒勒索 XD 01/28 10:15
推 enggys: Pascal 可能沒注意到, 這裡會讓中文母語者困惑的點, 是在 01/28 12:58
→ enggys: 於 "語用" 而不是 "語意" ^_^ 01/28 12:58
→ enggys: 您覺得這三句在語意上有沒有差異呢? 01/28 15:11
→ enggys: 1. We are going to do something tomorrow. 01/28 15:11
→ enggys: 2. We were going to do something tomorrow. 01/28 15:11
→ enggys: 3. We decided to do something tomorrow. 01/28 15:11
→ enggys: 的確就是一連串的情境啊, 前面的說法不能讓 Linda 早點來 01/28 16:24
→ enggys: , 才接著說出 "紅字部分" 要她晚點還是要過來. 這種說話 01/28 16:24
→ enggys: 技巧雙方都瞭解, 所以我最早推文說的語意只能 "暗示" 而 01/28 16:24
→ enggys: 非 "明講", 因為雙方心裡都有譜後面對話可能會有其他發展 01/28 16:24
→ enggys: . 大家以中文溝通時應該都懂, 換成英文不會就不懂了吧. ( 01/28 16:24
→ enggys: 還是我又過度解讀惹) 回到原 po 的問題點, 上述三句的差 01/28 16:24
→ enggys: 異, Pascal 解釋給您了嗎? 01/28 16:24
→ enggys: I think you forgot to include the adverb "tomorrow" i 01/28 17:39
→ enggys: n the questions to Pascal, which is what caused OP's 01/28 17:39
→ enggys: confusion in the first place. My first sentence means 01/28 17:39
→ enggys: that we have a plan for tomorrow, and it's highly li 01/28 17:39
→ enggys: kely that we'll stick to that plan. The second senten 01/28 17:39
→ enggys: ce implies that there may be a change of plan. The th 01/28 17:39
→ enggys: ird sentence simply states that the decision was made 01/28 17:39
→ enggys: in the past. Please consider including those three s 01/28 17:39
→ enggys: entences for the sake of clarity, if you wish to ask 01/28 17:39
→ enggys: Pascal again. 01/28 17:39
推 enggys: 題外話, 英語相關問題推薦去 StackExchange 或 Quora 提 01/28 18:10
→ enggys: 問, 那邊有專板, 也有眾多語言專家會解答. 別的地方可能 01/28 18:10
→ enggys: 要碰點運氣, 不小心就會像 ptt 車/房/股板一樣, 上班族跑 01/28 18:10
→ enggys: 去向中學生請教 XD 先祝各位虎年行大運喔. 01/28 18:10
推 cuylerLin: 我的看法跟 scju 大一樣，單純字面上來看就只是在說那 01/28 18:48
→ cuylerLin: 個決定是過去的，根本沒有額外情勒的成分，實際對話的 01/28 18:48
→ cuylerLin: 時候那句話可以因語氣改變讓人覺得或不覺得那是情勒， 01/28 18:48
→ cuylerLin: 而且說真的情勒是 an objective experience on the rec 01/28 18:48
→ cuylerLin: eiver's end，口說不是微積分或理論股價這種 determini 01/28 18:48
→ cuylerLin: stic science，within the possible realm of interpre 01/28 18:48
→ cuylerLin: tations of a sentence, any one of them is plausible 01/28 18:48
→ cuylerLin: , but some are, of course, more likely to happen th 01/28 18:48
→ cuylerLin: an others, suggesting not that there is some defini 01/28 18:48
→ cuylerLin: te yardstick with which we could judge the likeliho 01/28 18:49
→ cuylerLin: od of an interpretation, but that the concept of "b 01/28 18:49
→ cuylerLin: estness" should function more or less like a shifti 01/28 18:49
→ cuylerLin: ng window of all possible ones, with them collectiv 01/28 18:49
→ cuylerLin: ely modulated by the given contextual immediacy. 01/28 18:49
→ enggys: 我有些好奇兩位對那三個例句的解讀各為何呢? 這一串討論 01/28 19:04
→ enggys: 顯然就是因為解讀不同而引起的. 01/28 19:04
推 oosh0329: 我今天跟Stacy討論，決定明天出去玩，但Linda說她不能去 01/28 19:17
→ oosh0329: 我今天跟Stacy討論，原本決定明天出去玩，但Linda說她不 01/28 19:17
→ oosh0329: 能去... 01/28 19:17
→ oosh0329: 中英文肯定是不一樣，但如果拿這兩句去問中文母語者： 01/28 19:17
→ oosh0329: 他們明天的計畫有改變嗎？ 01/28 19:17
→ oosh0329: 我相信兩句話都不會一面倒都同一個答案。然而第二句的 01/28 19:17
→ oosh0329: 「原本」這兩字把明天出去的計畫改變的機率大幅提升 01/28 19:17
→ oosh0329: 對Pascal來說，were going to就是過去的一個決定這麼單 01/28 19:18
→ oosh0329: 純，類似於"太糟了吧！我們都決定要租電影跟訂披薩了！" 01/28 19:18
→ oosh0329: 但如果當天是為了Linda生日所辦的Sleepover趴 01/28 19:18
→ oosh0329: 那麼were going to代表的意義可能就不一樣了 01/28 19:18
→ PPmYeah: e大的解讀是對的 01/28 22:11
→ PPmYeah: were going to 暗示 Stacy 預期從 "Are you free tomorro 01/28 22:12
→ PPmYeah: w night?" 這問題當中 得到的回覆是 "Yes" 的; 01/28 22:12
→ PPmYeah: 所以得到"No, I'm not." 的回覆後, 原本已經計畫好 01/28 22:13
→ PPmYeah: 並可能告訴 Linda 的活動已經泡湯, 成為舊信息 01/28 22:13
→ PPmYeah: 但之所以選擇依舊說出來, 確實有較強的失望語氣在裡面 01/28 22:14
→ PPmYeah: 也就是e大說的: 原本已把你(Linda)假定成團員的意思 01/28 22:14
→ PPmYeah: (打電話之前的預期心理) 01/28 22:15
→ PPmYeah: 如今計畫少了一人, 就不能確定 rent a movie and order 01/28 22:15
→ PPmYeah: pizza 會不會繼續進行下去 ...是情勒(積極希望對方改變主 01/28 22:16
→ PPmYeah: 意) 或失望(被動接受結果)的解讀其實需要聽實際的對話才 01/28 22:16
→ PPmYeah: 能得知了 01/28 22:16
→ PPmYeah: 喔看了後面還有未完的對話: Can your parents find...(ry 01/28 22:19
→ PPmYeah: 應該可以直接確定是偏向e大說的情勒(或者說強烈希望對方 01/28 22:20
→ PPmYeah: 重新考慮)的語氣了 01/28 22:20
→ yoson: 這相當於 我們「本來」打算 rent a movie and order pizza 01/28 22:47
→ yoson: 的那個「本來」囉 01/28 22:47
→ yoson: 至於這個「本來」代表什麼意涵，我會覺得是讓語氣更委婉， 01/28 23:05
→ yoson: 不要讓Stacy覺得 We will do it without you anyway. 01/28 23:05
→ cuylerLin: 痾... from time to time... lol 01/30 17:40
推 enggys: 結果被 moderator 文質彬彬地 "各不打五十大板" XD 所以 01/30 17:49
→ enggys: Stacy 說的話有可能包含暗示; 也有可能 Stacy 沒想要作暗 01/30 17:49
→ enggys: 示, 但自己當下也不知道她的話可以包含暗示 XD 也就是說 01/30 17:49
→ enggys: 我們要和 Stacy 夠熟才能懂她這句話的意思. 但這似乎否定 01/30 17:49
→ enggys: 了不少從教材學英文的價值 XD 01/30 17:49
→ enggys: I'll let cuyerlin to figure out the meaning of that p 01/30 17:51
→ enggys: hrase himself ^_^ 01/30 17:51
→ cuylerLin: Well, you're too sweet. You don't have to worry abt 01/30 18:01
→ cuylerLin: me. Hope you find what you were looking for on tha 01/30 18:01
→ cuylerLin: t forum ^_^ 01/30 18:01
→ enggys: I wasn't really worrying about you, but now I kinda d 01/30 18:15
→ enggys: o because there are two grammar mistakes in your last 01/30 18:15
→ enggys: sentence. 01/30 18:15
推 enggys: I'm sorry, that was a cheap shot. We all make grammar 01/30 21:42
→ enggys: mistakes from time to time. 01/30 21:42
→ enggys: I suppose we all have better things to do than having 01/30 21:43
→ enggys: petty fights on bbs. My parents were wondering why I 01/30 21:43
→ enggys: kept peeking at my phone at the dinner table ^_^ 01/30 21:43
→ enggys: Here's wishing everyone a happy Chinese new year. I'l 01/30 21:43
→ enggys: l see y'all after the holidays. 01/30 21:43