Re: [文法] 與事實相反
※ 引述《tijj (my two cents)》之銘言：
: 推 tijj:d之外,c可以是正確選項. 01/08 11:10
: 推 l10nel:未來可能性小（但非完全不可能），c) were to + would 正常 01/08 13:48
: → l10nel: ^^d) would 正常 01/08 13:48
: → l10nel:c) will 是極少見的邊緣用法,的確出現在某些書中,雜誌文章, 01/08 13:49
: → l10nel:小說,粗略估計will/would比率大概1:30吧,不建議用will。 01/08 13:50
: → l10nel:這were是past subjunctive,很自然搭配will的過去式would。 01/08 13:53
: 補充一下,如果出題老師說c錯,就給他/她看
: 麻省理工所出版的語文邏輯學系列教科書:
: Conditionals by Nicholas Rescher
: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2007, pp 23
: http://ppt.cc/USfK
: Counterfactual
: If he were to do that, he would be a fool.
: If he were to do that, he will be a fool.
: If he had done that, he would have been a fool.
看到 counterfactual 心裡立刻警鈴大作，來看看這本書在說什麼：
(第 23 頁)
Counterfactual
Present If he were to do that, he would be a fool.
Future If he were to do that, he will be a fool.
Past If he had done that, he would have been a fool.
我補上幾個之前被遺漏的標籤。看到上面幾行，立刻引人懷疑的是，作者在此將
would/will 的區別視為 present/future 的區別，這可不得了，難倒他這麼說你就這麼信
了？我倒是第一次聽過這種區分法，我認為這完全是錯誤的。作者就這麼在第 23 頁丟下
這樣的「規則」，給 will 貼了 future 標籤，把 would 困在 present 時區裡，沒有解
釋為何如此，沒有引用實例，完全一副他說了算的姿態。
（另外的小抱怨：表「未來」的意思，他歸類為 counterfactual，這是第二個怪的地方。
未來還沒發生的事用「與事實相反」稱之，這是不精確的想法，我一直建議避免。難倒他
是上帝，能精準預測未來一定會不會發生某件事？他也不像雨神可以大言不慚地說：
it is raining soon。不過話說回來，很多傳統文法書、中文作者的文法書、台灣老師，
都犯了這個思想不精確的毛病。）
整本書裡，是否舉了其他例子來佐證這個 would/will = present/future 觀點？看看書
裡所有關於 if ... were to 的例子（數字和大寫是我加上去的）：
1 One classic instance is Albert Einstein’s pondering the question of what
the WOULD would look like if one were to travel along a ray of light.
2 But if you were to say “The market is open if, but only if it is Thursday"
your statement WOULD seem to deny (erroneously) that Tuesday is also a market
day.
3 (counterfactual, subjunctive) If he were to invite me, I WOULD certainly
refuse.
4 (speculative) If he were to come [which is unknown one way or the other],
then we WOULD have a foursome.
5 (speculative) If it were to rain [which is something we don’t know one way
or the other], then the newly planted seed WOULD be washed away.
6 If he should [or were to] come, he WOULD see me.
7 Counterexpected: If he were to come, they WOULD greet him.
8 Speculatively future oriented: If I were to sing, my dog WOULD bark.
以上 8 例清一色是 would。根據他的「規範」，這些都是表示 present time 現在。真
的假的？各位看看句子的內容，這些非得都是現在嗎？明天、以後、下個月就不成立了？
If he were to come，他非得現在來？五分鐘內或許吧，一小時內出現算不算「現在」？
令人高度懷疑。再者，表示「未來」的 will 怎麼連個影子都沒有？
終於好不容易找到全書第二個含有 will 的句子：作者說，下面 9 和 10，雖然一個用
would 一個用 will，但意思上都是都是 factual，都是可能發生的。
咦，前面（第 23 頁）不是說，這都是 counterfactual 嗎？現在這裡又變 factual 了
，但句子形式一樣！？此外，這裡說明 9 和 10 的差別時，為何就不標示出「
present/future」的區分了？
9 (factual, subjunctive) If you were to check the text of Shakespeare’s
Twelfth Night, you would find that he speaks of midsummer (and not midwinter)
madness.
10 (factual, indicative) If you were to check the text of Shakespeare’s
Twelfth Night, you will find that he speaks of midsummer (not midwinter)
madness.
好戲還在後頭。書裡還有這麼一句：
11 If he were to come to the conference TOMORROW, I WOULD finally get to meet
him.
句裡確實用了 tomorrow，但後面用 would。奇怪，tomorrow 是未來，不是該用 will 嗎
？真令人替作者的邋遢鬆散感到尷尬。
以上，作者可說以書中自己寫的例子，證明自己「if...were to... + would/will 帶有
present/future 對比」一說，根本在胡說八道。
看看外面的英語實例：
http://tinyurl.com/b3kps3p
What Would I Say Today If I Were to Die Tomorrow?
一本書書名大剌剌用了 if...were to...tomorrow （未來） + would，因為這本來就是
對的啊。書裡搜得到不少的 if i were to die tomorrow, I would...。各位儘量去搜別
的書，相信找到的 if...were to，無論 if 子句有沒有具體指涉 now 還是未來某時間
（tomorrow, next year, etc.），其搭配 would 的（或 could/might）實例數目，絕對
壓倒性多過 will/can/may。這個懸殊的比例就是文法規則的內化的表現。實際的語料也
說明了，would/will = present/future 這點毫無根據。
奉勸不要因為一本書怎麼寫，就毫不思索地信以為真並拿來宣揚，對自己和他人都沒好處
。
說到 conditionals，文獻一堆，良莠不齊，介紹一本寫得極為嚴謹（比如，不用
counterfactual 稱呼未發生的事或 were to 句子，也沒有憑空捏造的 will/would =
present/future 區別），又基於語料事實試圖加以歸納整理的書：
Conditionals: A Comprehensive Empirical Analysis
By Renaat Declerck, Susan Reed
http://tinyurl.com/acq2ztz
此書第 215-219 頁專門說明 were to （表可能性小）的主要用法。
除了大量的實例顯示使用正規的 would 外，此書的確指出了 were to 搭配現在式助動詞
will, can 等字，不無可能，但是所舉的這些少數例子，句子內容有其特殊設定、語義
，作者並對說話者為何用 will 提出可信的合理化論據。這些特例的情境，遠在
If he were to steal that, he would be a thief. 這種「正常」句之外。有的這類例子
，作者將之改回為含有 would 的句子，原意不變。
這本書以務實、講理的方式處理 would/will，視前者為正常情況，後者為罕見特例（需
符合特定的合適情境），真確反應了語言現實。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 76.198.133.1
→
01/09 23:24, , 1F
01/09 23:24, 1F
→
01/10 11:50, , 2F
01/10 11:50, 2F
→
01/10 11:53, , 3F
01/10 11:53, 3F
→
01/10 11:53, , 4F
01/10 11:53, 4F
→
01/10 11:53, , 5F
01/10 11:53, 5F
→
01/10 11:54, , 6F
01/10 11:54, 6F
→
01/10 11:54, , 7F
01/10 11:54, 7F
推
01/13 11:23, , 8F
01/13 11:23, 8F
tijj clearly enjoys dropping names/schools and mistaking fallacies for good
argument. If I had a nickel for every time he did this, I'd be filthy rich.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name-dropping
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/apcelebs.html (appeal to celebrity)
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html (appeal to misleading authority)
So I called out Rescher's "will/would" analysis for the nonsense it is, and
tijj sneakily distorted it into "Conditionals這本胡說八道的著作". This is
called a "straw man" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), another
favorite tactic of his.
※ 編輯: l10nel 來自: 76.198.133.1 (01/15 16:21)
→
01/17 16:04, , 9F
01/17 16:04, 9F
→
01/17 16:04, , 10F
01/17 16:04, 10F
→
09/07 00:14, , 11F
09/07 00:14, 11F
→
12/02 18:28, , 12F
12/02 18:28, 12F
→
04/13 22:47,
6年前
, 13F
04/13 22:47, 13F
討論串 (同標題文章)
本文引述了以下文章的的內容：
文法
3
19
以下文章回應了本文：
文法
4
33
完整討論串 (本文為第 4 之 8 篇)：
文法
1
7
文法
1
2
文法
4
33
文法
1
13
文法
3
19
文法
3
13
文法
1
20