[請益] 此處解釋為何不用與現在事實相反的假設
出處 : http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/sharp_1?q=sharp
sharp
adjective (ABLE TO CUT) /???p/ /???rp/
Definition
1. having a thin edge or point that can cut something or make a hole in something:
a knife with a sharp edge/blade.
sharp teeth/claws/fingernails
The point of this pencil isn't sharp enough.
2. producing or describing a quick, strong pain
that makes you feel like you have been cut:
She nudged me with a sharp elbow, to tell me to be quiet.
I have this sharp pain in my chest, doctor.
請問解釋2.中的"that makes you feel like you have been cut:"
此處為何不用you had been cut??
因為本解釋不是表示說讓你覺得好像是被cut一樣，也就是說感覺上像被cut
但是事實上應該沒有實際被cut，那麼的話 不是應該使用與現在事實相反的假設嗎?
為何此處並沒有呢?
可否請教其他的看法?
謝謝
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 61.64.179.109
推
05/25 16:29, , 1F
05/25 16:29, 1F
→
05/25 16:30, , 2F
05/25 16:30, 2F
→
05/25 16:31, , 3F
05/25 16:31, 3F
→
05/25 16:32, , 4F
05/25 16:32, 4F
Have + Vpp 應該沒有表假設的意思
※ 編輯: tucson 來自: 61.64.179.109 (05/25 19:12)
→
05/25 23:16, , 5F
05/25 23:16, 5F
→
05/25 23:17, , 6F
05/25 23:17, 6F
→
05/25 23:17, , 7F
05/25 23:17, 7F
手上剛好沒這本書
我想知道的是 1.這應該看起來是很明顯的一種假設但作者不用假設法是
基於何種理由? 2.此處若使用假設法 you had been 會與原you have been有何不同?
※ 編輯: tucson 來自: 27.105.29.52 (05/25 23:49)
推
05/25 23:57, , 8F
05/25 23:57, 8F
→
05/25 23:57, , 9F
05/25 23:57, 9F
討論串 (同標題文章)
以下文章回應了本文：
完整討論串 (本文為第 1 之 3 篇)：