Re: [文法]What would..when [past-tense]的兩個語境

看板Eng-Class作者tijj (my two cents)時間12年前 (2013/04/18 10:35)推噓31(31推 0噓 207→)

留言238則, 14人參與討論串2/4 (看更多)

※ 引述《l10nel (小失)》之銘言： : 再次得到 Pullum 教授（http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_K._Pullum）撥冗賜 : 教，以下全文實錄： : [去信] : Dear Professor Pullum: : I am wondering if you could help with another grammar question. I am trying : to determine whether this question: : What would you do when you were bitten by a snake? : can have two interpretations instead of just one, given proper contexts. : Below, I try to construct a scenario to include both interpretations: : [In a village where snake bites are not uncommon. Paul, a snake expert who : has been bitten many times in the past 20 years, gives a talk to local : residents who have come to learn about snake bites. Paul does not know : whether anyone in the audience has ever been bitten by a snake in their life : and does not assume anyone has. But he starts his talk like this:] : (1) "Hi, everyone. Let me ask you this: What would do when you were bitten : by a snake?" : [Someone from the audience raises her hand] "It has never happened to me. : If I were bitten by a snake, I guess I would ..." : [laughter and chatter] : Paul: "In fact, I have been bitten by snakes many times in my 20-year career : dealing with snakes. That's why I am here giving this talk." : (2) [Another from the audience asked: "So Paul,"] what would you do when you : were bitten by a snake?" : Paul: "That is exactly the topic of this talk. When I was bitten by a snake, : I {would follow, followed} these 5-step approach..." : My analysis: : (1) is the less obvious, future interpretation. "When" is basically the same : as the conditional (hypothetical) "if", and does not assume factuality. The : addressee may or may not be bitten by snakes in the future. The question is : a "tentative" (remote/polite/etc.) conditional. Many prefer "if" over "when" : (including me), but I believe "when" is still grammatical and standard : English. In fact, I observe authentic parallel sentences using "when", in : published non-fiction and non-linguistic books. Prescriptivists, ESL : teachers and beginner grammar books will waste no time dismissing this : conditional "when" outright as ungrammatical. So far, I found this : conditional (contingency) usage of "when" described at length in one grammar : book ("Conditionals" by Declerck) and briefly in Quirk et al. I am still : trying to locate mention of it in your Cambridge Grammar of the English : Language. : (2) is the salient, past-experience interpretation. "When" cannot be : replaced with "if". "When" is temporal and assumes past occurrences. This : is the canonical, factual/temporal sense of "when". Many people see only : this interpretation. : Thank you very much for reading this far. I appreciate your comments. : Sincerely, : ----- : [回覆] : I think you've got it exactly right. I would add only this: in [1] the : "would" is the preterite of WILL used in its modal remoteness sense to : explore a hypothetical or counterfactual possible event. In [2], the "would" 要點在[1], 我看出爭點. 就是要不要對 r/t/h來: 擴大解釋. 就像你跟我之前吵很久的 "If there is an earthquake tomorrow, we will have worked in vain" 是不是subjunctive? 在於要不要對subjunctive擴大解釋的道理一樣當你講到 r/t/h的世界,大部分母語人士/學者只想到常用的if的 r/t/h世界. 普遍眾多的文法書(不管是不是給ESL),並不會宣稱用副詞子句when來代出r/t/h. 所以, 為什麼很多人去問,都會得到一個ungrammatical之類的答案. 如果文法書都講when來代出r/t/h很恰當,結果造出來句子去問母語人士/學者卻都得到一個ungrammatical之類的答案. 還被反問為何不用 if不是更清楚嗎? 我觀察出這是個重要原因. 你問是不是算標準英語, 我不覺得Pullum教授有正面回答你. 好, 就算是標準英語? 就鼓勵這樣用下去嗎? 對我而言,我表態,我不鼓勵. : is the preterite used in its past-time-reference sense, so "what would you : do" is roughly equivalent to "what was it that you used to do". The "when" : clause is therefore a counterfactual conditional in [1] but not in [2]. : GKP : 以上，如對所用任何字詞（如 hypothetical, counterfactual, remote 等）有疑問，歡 : 迎討論，我會試著用中文釋義。有時候，討論可能因為拘泥於一個字的定義（不同人從不 : 同資料、領域，可能得到不同定義，這很正常）而造成誤會、失焦。但在這裡，這些字詞 : 在完整的敘述句中，和清晰的邏輯脈絡下，意思就很明顯、明確。即使你對某一字詞有堅 : 定不移的定義，全篇內容的主要意旨仍不受影響。

推

zofloya

04/18 11:51, , 1^F

04/18 11:51, 1^F

→

zofloya

04/18 11:51, , 2^F

04/18 11:51, 2^F

→

zofloya

04/18 11:53, , 3^F

04/18 11:53, 3^F

→

tijj

04/18 11:53, , 4^F

04/18 11:53, 4^F

→

zofloya

04/18 11:55, , 5^F

04/18 11:55, 5^F

推

zofloya

04/18 12:01, , 6^F

04/18 12:01, 6^F

這推文是在模糊焦點嗎? 我想說的是為何有人問或如英語網頁上所問, 會有ungrammatical的答案. 我已經解釋這種感知上的衝突. 如果有人看不懂我的解釋麻煩您多看幾次. 嗯, 既然是這樣就是標準英文,因已有推文的負責保證. ※ 編輯: tijj 來自: 220.135.3.163 (04/18 12:25)

推

zofloya

04/18 12:31, , 7^F

04/18 12:31, 7^F

→

zofloya

04/18 12:32, , 8^F

04/18 12:32, 8^F

→

zofloya

04/18 12:32, , 9^F

04/18 12:32, 9^F

→

zofloya

04/18 12:34, , 10^F

04/18 12:34, 10^F

負責保證: What would you do WHEN you were bitten by a snake? 是指 What would you do IF you were bitten by a snake? "總使有語境", 這樣用也絕對絕對絕對的OK꘠我相信您已經說明是了. (雖我已經解釋這種感知上的衝突) 再次謝謝您負責任的態度. 大家放心去用吧. ※ 編輯: tijj 來自: 220.135.3.163 (04/18 12:40) ※ 編輯: tijj 來自: 220.135.3.163 (04/18 12:41)

推

zofloya

04/18 12:47, , 11^F

04/18 12:47, 11^F

→

zofloya

04/18 12:48, , 12^F

04/18 12:48, 12^F

推

zofloya

04/18 12:51, , 13^F

04/18 12:51, 13^F