推 TonyDog:亦可參照 3141 篇，我的推文。 02/07 18:35
→ TonyDog:我也不了解，為什麼一個譯者可以不懂裝懂，言詞反覆。 02/07 18:35
推 finavir:At this point, the only thing I will say is that: 02/07 22:46
→ finavir:"Keep in mind that the term 'seminar' is an umbrella 02/07 22:46
→ finavir:term whose meaning is not restricted to one single 02/07 22:47
→ finavir:definition." 02/07 22:48
→ finavir:Cheers. 02/07 22:50
推 luciferii:seminar 也許有很多定義，卻不包含 finavir 自行歸納的 02/08 00:07
→ luciferii:那個定義...當然也不包含「拉風」的含意在內。 02/08 00:07
推 luciferii:對譯者來說，具有多個意義的字代表你要更小心，而不是 02/08 00:09
→ luciferii:更隨意 02/08 00:10
推 finavir:luciferii: You need to stop confusing and manipulating 02/08 03:00
→ finavir:what other people are saying. Also, do yourself a 02/08 03:01
→ finavir:service and stop making yourself a public joke. Btw, 02/08 03:01
→ finavir:people are obliged to "amuse" you with new tricks when 02/08 03:03
→ finavir:you can't even get a hang of the "old" ones. 02/08 03:03
→ finavir:[erratum] "people are NOT obliged to amuse you [...]" 02/08 03:05
→ finavir:More, none of the discussants has ever said "la fon" 02/08 03:08
→ finavir:is part of the "denifition" of "seminar". 02/08 03:09
推 karenbabe:謝謝各位。我很清楚seminar的定義，也謝謝各位的論辯讓 02/08 07:54
→ karenbabe:我確信我的想法。我原文只想點出l兄論點上不一致之處， 02/08 07:55
→ karenbabe:希望能增進整串討論的思辯品質。畢竟禁反言是邏輯論辯中 02/08 07:56
→ karenbabe:很重要的原則。我在思考這究竟是中文表達上的語誤，或者 02/08 07:57
→ karenbabe:可以藉由l兄的說明讓我更理解其思路。 02/08 07:59
推 finavir:But unfortunately the integrity/quality of the 02/08 08:14
→ finavir:discussion will not improve unless a particular some- 02/08 08:14
→ finavir:one (ie. luciferii) stops confusing and manipulating 02/08 08:15
→ finavir:others' arguments. Granted, everyone is entitled to 02/08 08:16
→ finavir:his/her own opinions, yet when that entitlement is 02/08 08:17
→ finavir:being abused through confusing/manipulating the 02/08 08:18
→ finavir:opponents' arguments/opinions, the entire discussion 02/08 08:18
→ finavir:deteriorates into a black hole of ill-roasted eggs. 02/08 08:19
推 finavir:To luciferii: make sure you get back on track and 02/08 08:51
→ finavir:offer us some comprehensible explanations regarding 02/08 08:53
→ finavir:the inconsistensies in your arguments. Afterall, that 02/08 08:54
→ finavir:is what this post is all about. This will also be 02/08 08:55
→ finavir:another opportunity for you to enlighten us. ;) 02/08 08:56
→ luciferii:前後我對seminar都是一樣的，沒有推給什麼歐美定義不同 02/08 09:15
→ luciferii:還是古今定義不同這種藉口喔 02/08 09:16
推 luciferii:也不會扯說 seminar 有 lecture only 這種矛盾的事 02/08 14:58
→ luciferii:還有前後說 A xxx may be B, but the reverse is not 02/08 14:59
→ luciferii:necessarily true. 然後後面再舉個 B is A的例子自打 02/08 15:00
→ luciferii:嘴巴... 02/08 15:01
推 finavir:Mister, "the reverse is NOT NECESSARILY true" means 02/08 21:05
→ finavir:that "the reverse could or could not be true, depend- 02/08 21:05
→ finavir:ing on the context/situation". 02/08 21:08
→ finavir:It differs from "the reverse is NOT true." In this 02/08 21:08
→ finavir:regard, of course I could use an example where lecture 02/08 21:09
→ finavir:is a seminar, without contradicting myself. Otherwise, 02/08 21:10
→ finavir:why did you think I used the phrase "not necessarily" 02/08 21:11
→ finavir:in the first place? ;) 02/08 21:11
→ finavir:So, again, the accusation brought forth by luciferii 02/08 21:12
→ finavir:is not grounded on merit. 02/08 21:13
→ finavir:To represent graphically: seminar-->lecture, but 02/08 21:14
→ finavir:lecture--> seminar will be true if and only if some 02/08 21:18
→ finavir:conditions/premises are met. In other words, lecture 02/08 21:19
→ finavir:--> seminar is not necessarily true. 02/08 21:19
→ finavir:Besides, the Michel Foucault example already proved 02/08 21:21
→ finavir:you wrong. I'm amazed to see you say that it's an 02/08 21:22
→ finavir:"excuse". Have you ever engaged intellectual debates 02/08 21:23
→ finavir:or discussion? I mean, even ordinary folks know once 02/08 21:24
→ finavir:a statement is disproved by a counterexample, that 02/08 21:25
→ finavir:statement can no longer be true without some 02/08 21:25
→ finavir:conditionalities. And you did not care to give 02/08 21:26
→ finavir:yourself an exit route (ie. did not set forth some 02/08 21:27
→ finavir:conditionalities). Enough said, and you stop being 02/08 21:27
→ finavir:unskillfully elusive, get back on track and enlighten 02/08 21:28
→ finavir:us by explanaing your inconsistencies as pointed out 02/08 21:29
→ finavir:by karenbabe. 02/08 21:30
→ finavir:note: if luciferii is not a biological male, 02/08 21:45
→ finavir:substitute [Mister] with [Miss]. 02/08 21:46
推 luciferii:所以結論是 A xxx may be B, but B is not necessarily 02/08 22:25
→ luciferii:A...結果是前後兩句意思一樣，有說跟沒說一樣的話? 02/08 22:26
推 luciferii:接下來你挑戰的是北美對 seminar 的認知，而提出了自己 02/08 22:45
→ luciferii:觀察但是歸納錯誤的定義。如果你要想證明seminar到今天 02/08 22:45
→ luciferii:在北美的定義已經你猜想的變掉了，麻煩先想想為什麼 02/08 22:46
→ luciferii:Seminar Course 是得獨立的課程名詞，再去問問學校倒底 02/08 22:46
→ luciferii:為什麼要設立 Seminar Course. 02/08 22:47
→ luciferii:至於Society Must be defended的課，如果你看到開課歷史 02/08 22:47
→ luciferii:和講稿安排和全文，你會發現這本來就是他單向教授課程 02/08 22:47
→ luciferii:但是這門課是很特殊也是門 Public Course，所以同時也具 02/08 22:48
→ luciferii:seminar 的特性。事實上在北美也有很多課安排本來就是 02/08 22:51
→ luciferii:一半一半的，這時會標明上課是 "Lecture/Seminar"，而 02/08 22:53
→ luciferii:不只單標明 Seminar Only 或 Lecture Only. 混用這兩字 02/08 22:53
→ luciferii:的機會實在不多。你想挑戰這兩個字的分野，歡迎來作教 02/08 22:53
→ luciferii:育改革。 02/08 22:54
→ luciferii:你的 seminar-->lecture 根本就已經搞錯了。拜託翻一點 02/08 22:55
→ luciferii:歷史故事。 02/08 22:56
推 luciferii:另，你搞不懂 [pk mode]的意思，我示範一下： 02/09 01:06
→ luciferii:利用基礎的邏輯學，針對 finavir 下列的陳述來作分析， 02/09 01:06
→ luciferii:A seminar course may be a lecture course,[1] 02/09 01:07
→ luciferii:but the reverse is not necessarily true.[2] 02/09 01:07
→ luciferii:[1]的意思，在邏輯上，就是 02/09 01:07
→ luciferii:[1.1] Sometimes, A seminar course is a lecture cours 02/09 01:07
→ luciferii:[1.2] Sometimes, A seminar course is not a lec cou 02/09 01:07
→ luciferii:[2]的意思，照這一篇裏的回應，就是 02/09 01:08
→ luciferii:[2.1] Sometimes, A Lecture course is a seminar cours 02/09 01:08
→ luciferii:[2.2] Sometimes, A Lecture course is not a sem cours 02/09 01:08
→ luciferii:意即 A Lecture course maybe a seminar course 02/09 01:08
→ luciferii:綜和四個邏輯推論式，就是 02/09 01:08
→ luciferii:A seminar course may be a lecture course,&vice versa 02/09 01:08
→ luciferii:但是原句的語氣卻是 02/09 01:09
→ luciferii:but the reverse is not necessarily true.[2] 02/09 01:09
→ luciferii:這邏輯是一片混亂。其實這只是利用 may 和 not necessar 02/09 01:10
→ luciferii:這些可有可無的字眼，作了個沒有結果的陳述。 02/09 01:10
→ luciferii:先不提 finavir 對 seminar 字義本身的誤解， 02/09 01:10
→ luciferii:(小班制,進階，且因為誤解而扯出 02/09 01:10
→ luciferii:「研究所課==seminar不用講」這種笑話當論點) 02/09 01:11
→ luciferii:我們從前後文來推想倒底 finavir 想表達的意思，可能是 02/09 01:11
→ luciferii:seminar course 有時會上成 lecture course 02/09 01:11
→ luciferii:lecture coures 有時會上成 seminar course 02/09 01:11
→ luciferii:所以機然給出建議是，翻成哪個都沒差，不必要把這兩個字 02/09 01:11
→ luciferii:眼分開。言下之意是可以混用(但是之後本人又否認這點) 02/09 01:12
→ luciferii:可惜北美的學校包含多倫多大學，在課程分類和課名上就是 02/09 01:12
→ luciferii:有區分，要給出可以隨便翻的建議， 02/09 01:12
→ luciferii:等你有那個隨便可以左右教育機制的地位再說。 02/09 01:12
→ luciferii:最後還乾脆叫人在課程描述裏寫明，課名避掉不翻 02/09 01:13
→ luciferii:(事實上，這可能遠超出原po的工作可影響到的範圍) 02/09 01:13
→ luciferii:最後告訴你 pk mode 是什麼，就是你跟我的文章幾乎都是 02/09 01:14
→ luciferii:1對1交談, 對別人意義不大。 02/09 01:14
→ luciferii:跟你語氣是什麼樣子，一點關係都沒有。 02/09 01:14
→ finavir:To luciferii: you are gravely hopeless...XD 02/09 08:25
→ finavir:It's okay for me to misunderstand what "pk mode" is, 02/09 08:30
→ finavir:since it's not quite in the popular parlance. BUT, 02/09 08:30
→ finavir:it's NOT OKAY for you to misunderstand/misinterpret, 02/09 08:31
→ finavir:if not unable to understand, my sentences almost 02/09 08:32
→ finavir:every step of of the way. It really doesn't make you 02/09 08:33
→ finavir:look good as a translator. 02/09 08:34
→ finavir:Btw, the "A is B, but B is not necessarily A" is a 02/09 08:35
→ finavir:typical LSAT logic question. If you were to take LSAT, 02/09 08:36
→ finavir:you'd never make it to above 120. Go figure. ;p 02/09 08:39
→ finavir:Anyhow, you can stop picking on me and get back on 02/09 08:40
→ finavir:track to answer karenbabe's question. 02/09 08:41
→ finavir:ps. Telling you to "stop picking on me" doesn't make 02/09 08:51
→ finavir:you right or the victorious party. Mark those words. 02/09 08:52
推 luciferii:你的Logic真的沒學好. 1. 你是講 A maybe B, not Ais B 02/09 16:36
→ luciferii:2. "A is B" ==="B is not necessarily A" 這是同一句話 02/09 16:37
→ luciferii:你的文意就自己搞混了... 02/09 16:37
推 luciferii:還有，你還在迴避為什麼把 seminar 意思搞錯的問題喔 02/09 20:48