Re: [考題] What would you do _____?

看板Eng-Class作者l10nel (小失)時間11年前 (2013/04/13 15:34)推噓3(3推 0噓 45→)

留言48則, 9人參與討論串9/14 (看更多)

※ 引述《tijj (my two cents)》之銘言： : ※ 引述《l10nel (小失)》之銘言： : 以上,請你自己去證明 "what would you do when you HAD..." 與 : "what would you do when you WERE..." 是一樣的 : 以上,請你自己去證明 "what would you do when you GOT..." 與 : "what would you do when you WERE..." 是一樣的 : 以上,請你自己去證明 "what would you do when you COULD..." 與 : "what would you do when you WERE..." 是一樣的 : 請你自己去證明這些結構每個全部都跟 : "what would you do when you WERE..."是一樣的 : 這結構,請你自己去證明,與"What would you do when you were..."是一樣的. 這些網路例子、書中片段，和 Declerck 文法書例句，和被蛇咬的句子文法結構一樣，情態、時態也都一樣，這麼明顯的事，請問你說不一樣的理由何在？還有誰要站出來跟腔的？ Just because you cried irrelevance five times does not make it so, you know? Where are your reasoning and evidence? : 推 hopeliu:今天問了兩位系上教授，一位台灣元老籍，一位美國籍，都 04/12 21:24 : → hopeliu:說(A)是錯誤句，不能表示remote/tentative/hypothetical 04/12 21:25 : → hopeliu:的意思，要這樣表示就用if子句。 04/12 21:27 : 推 brella:學校英國籍外語老師也說要把would改成did 04/12 22:42 : 推 Chengheong:英國籍外語老師說要把would改成did 04/13 12:42 這些說(A)錯的人：你們也都認為我舉出的例句和(A)不相關嗎？如果不相關，理由是？如果你們願意舉一反三，看見這些句子結構都一樣或者相關、相仿，這個討論才得以繼續下去。那麼多例句中，就拿最後那本書來討論吧。我再將書的內容重列一遍，並加入更多前後文： Essentials of Early Childhood Education By Carol Gestwicki, Jane Bertrand Codes of Ethics We noted earlier in the chapter that a profession has a code of ethics, which is a statement of principle that governs moral behaviour and ethical decisions. In Canada several professional organizations have developed code of ethics statements for early childhood educators, to be used as a guide in making day-to-day decisions. Early childhood educators are frequently faced with ethical dilemmas in their work with young children and their families: ‧ What would you do when a parent demanded to know who hit her child? ‧ What would you do when a co-worker complained to you about another co-worker's treatment of a child? ‧ What would you do if a neighbour told you she heard had things about the last centre vou worked in? ‧ What would your responsibility be when another teacher told you that symptoms made her suspect child abuse, but that she was afraid to report it? Often, early childhood educators have to take action in situations in which all the facts are not known, or there is no single course of action that is clearly right or wrong. It is sometimes difficult to decide what an ethical response might be. Making ethical decisions and taking ethical actions in early childhood education and care may require being able to see beyond short-term consequences to consider long-range consequences. When you work in early childhood education and care settings, you will be asked to make many decisions about appropriate behaviour. Some of these decisions will require more than your accumulated knowledge of child development or educational practice. Some will pose genuine moral dilemmas, where you have to weigh your actions carefully in considering the panics involved. 你們如何理解中間四句問句的意義？我之前說，這四句話，因為有充足的前後文，又是出自一本專業領域的書，是再好不過的例證。大家在一頭熱、人云亦云跟著排斥(A)之前，請花一點時間看完以上整個語境，再想想，這四句為什麼這樣寫？首先思考它的時間到底指向過去經驗，還是在做一種可能的假設、設想？這是第一要務。 hopeliu: 老師說，"要這樣表示就用if子句" 為什麼四句中有三句用 when 一句用 if？ brella/Chengheong: "英國籍外語老師也說要把would改成did" 為什麼四句都用 would 而不用 did？ Chengheong 還上網問了某老師，回答： "A is not possible..." 這本書存在是事實吧？書裡寫了這四句話，其中有三句都用了和(A)結構一樣的句子，這也顯而易見吧？Still not possible？那位"老師"真該多涉獵英語這個東西，別急著自己亂立「稻草人」，還揚揚得意招呼別人快來駁倒它。 : 推 Darren37:有一種醍醐灌頂的感覺現在還是這種感覺嗎？你先前說，我也同意，(A)有一個「過去經驗」的語義。你難道看了 "A is not possible..." 之後就不假思索抹煞先前對(A)「過去經驗」的認知了嗎？為何這樣輕易扼殺一個難得的語感？這「過去經驗」的語感，這裡好多人顯然還沒體會到。可惜啊，請三思。 → shizz:的確what would you do if 或是what did you do when比較順 04/13 15:24 同樣請問，為何四句中三句用 when；為何四句都用 would 而不用 did？ → Chengheong:胡扯一通除了幫腔、亂罵人，你自己的看法是？ : 以我熟知的Harvard與MIT評分標準來看, 你交出這樣的reasoning, 不少教授 : 應該會死當你. 有請板主：可否代勸以上板友收斂一點，別一再尖酸刻薄到這程度（不久前另一個話題，還說要給我打零分）。到目前就這題還沒拿出什麼論據來。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 76.198.133.1 ※ 編輯: l10nel 來自: 76.198.133.1 (04/13 15:37) ※ 編輯: l10nel 來自: 76.198.133.1 (04/13 15:46) ※ 編輯: l10nel 來自: 76.198.133.1 (04/13 16:06)

→

sitifan

04/13 18:13, , 1^F

04/13 18:13, 1^F

→

l10nel

04/13 19:40, , 2^F

04/13 19:40, 2^F

→

sitifan

04/13 20:46, , 3^F

04/13 20:46, 3^F

→

Tiunn

04/13 20:48, , 4^F

04/13 20:48, 4^F

→