Re: [寫作班第五周]颱風-mingtai

[dvlin (Dee)]

我在想可能跟名詞的格有關係

  The disaster was caused by a hurricane.
  = A hurricane caused the disaster.

  The disaster was caused by strong winds.
  = Strong winds caused the disaster.

  The disaster was caused by a hurricane with its strong winds.
  = A hurricane caused the disaster with its strong winds.

文中原句:
"...hurricanes[,] which cause disasters mainly by[sic] their strong [winds],"
兩個comma中間的dependent clause所描述的對象是hurricanes,
不是disaster也不是strong winds，所以strong winds變成hurricanes的「工具」。

這樣不知道說不說得通?

※ 引述《mingtai1 (snake)》之銘言：
: 這個我也查了很久,我原本感覺似乎是兩種說法都是可行的..
: 但是我兩個外國朋友卻都說by比較好
: 他們認為with通常是指accompany, 伴隨著...或是用某種工具達成某件事
: (不同於by交通"工具"這種已經慣用的用法)
: 而by是"某個人或物"造成"某個結果"
: 根據Cambridge dictionary:
: by (CAUSE)
: preposition
: used to show the person or thing that does something:
: Ex.We were amazed by what she told us=>thing=what she told us,something=amazed
: 以文中的case, thing就是strong winds,  something就是disasters,
: 套這說法似乎是通的
: 而With的解釋如了伴隨著,還有以下一種:
: with (METHOD)
: preposition
: using something:
: Ex. He was shot at close range with a pistol.
: 這人被槍射. 這裡的with有種 使用某種工具的意味
: 套用到文中變成,hurricanes用strong wind做了disaster這件事.
: 如果將with翻成伴隨,那也不合原意(風是原因, 不是伴隨出現的東西)
: 相較之下, 似乎用by的解釋" strong wind causes disaster" 來套用更適合
: 但我外國朋友給我最後一句最中肯的話..他說寫像下面這樣就絕對沒有爭議 Orz
: disasters were caused by hurricane katrina with strong wind
: 大家有什麼其他意見也能提出來討論看看

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 99.231.10.180
※ 編輯: dvlin           來自: 99.231.10.180        (12/06 01:22)
→ dvlin:修文完了
推 mingtai1:我的感覺還是兩種都有說的通的解釋.一強調工具一強調原因
※ 編輯: dvlin           來自: 99.231.10.180        (12/06 01:31)
推 dvlin:嗯 可是原句中不是已經有原因了嗎?
推 dvlin:which cause... (which = tornados and hurricanes)
推 mingtai1:我意思是 套用劍橋字典對by(cause)的解釋在那關係子句上
→ mingtai1:which cause dis.. by strong wind==>這的by強調strong w
→ mingtai1:ind造成了disaster.