Re: [請益] as long as用法 (好久不見高手們)

看板Eng-Class作者 (paul)時間9年前 (2015/02/12 12:26), 9年前編輯推噓5(5推 0噓 27→)
留言32則, 8人參與, 最新討論串2/2 (看更多)
來吧，說說我為什麼覺得怪怪的。(搓手) 如果解釋得不對也歡迎糾正。 根據BBC的學習網站解釋 (說真的我沒有權威的文法書，如果這個出處不夠公信力請原諒) as long as: expressing time (不綴) as long as: expressing condition Note that as long as is also used in conditional sentences as an alternative to provided, meaning if and only if. So long as is also possible in this context: I don't mind. You can leave early, as long as you finish the work. I don't mind. You can go home early, so long as you finish the work. I don't mind. You can leave after lunch, provided you finish all the work. 另一處: As long as / provided / on condition that / only if We can use these alternatives to if if we want to emphasize the conditions surrounding the action, i.e. one thing will happen only if another thing happens. We can also use so long as and providing (that) as alternatives to as long as and provided (that). On condition that is formally very explicit. Provided / providing are more formal than as long as / so long as. 所以，as long as what we teach is wrong, teaching is in fact meangingless... 如果勉強翻譯成中文，會類似「唯有教錯的東西，我們才能把教學變得沒有意義」，聽起 來這位老師很想努力搞砸他的教學事業耶... 用上面提到的alternative代換一下，或許比較能聽出問題所在： ...teaching is in fact meaningless provided that what we teach is wrong... ...teaching is in fact meaningless on condition that what we teach is wrong... ...teaching is in fact meaningless only if what we teach is wrong... 我過度解讀這個expression了嗎? 我只覺得應該有不會造成誤會的講法，其實只要用 if就夠了，這裡用as long as或許是種畫蛇添足。 ※ 引述《paulchi (paul)》之銘言： : 好久沒上這裡! 想念會吵吵鬧鬧的大家 XDD : 是這樣，在某個英文教學討論版看到這樣的發言： : "I don't think we should draw a clear line between learning and teaching, so I : would say it WILL work in both ways. Also, I need to emphasize that learning : is the basis of teaching. No matter how well we can teach, as long as what we : teach is wrong, teaching is in fact meaningless and our students will suffer : as a result." : 有沒有人覺得這邊的as long as 用得怪怪的？ : 我先不多說自己的想法，省得影響大家回應的方向。 : 預祝新春愉快 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 182.234.66.11 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1423715178.A.047.html ※ 編輯: paulchi (182.234.66.11), 02/12/2015 12:34:21
→
02/12 12:45, , 1F
如果你都引用一個as long as有兩種解釋的情形，你為什麼就
02/12 12:45, 1F
→
02/12 12:45, , 2F
只挑其中一種來解釋呢？
02/12 12:45, 2F
因為另一個只在講時間，我個人認為無法拿來解釋這個句子，或解釋起來也不正確。 如果要 as long as what we teach is wrong 解釋成時間的long/short，那我會問 why would you teach the wrong stuff in the first place, let along teaching it for an undefined amount of time?
→
02/12 12:46, , 3F
為什麼teaching is in fact meaningless有"我們才能"的
02/12 12:46, 3F
→
02/12 12:46, , 4F
解讀
02/12 12:46, 4F
這樣翻是突顯我認為有的語意謬誤，因為字面上翻成的中文，"就中文來看"的確 沒啥問題。 "只要我們教的是錯的，教學事實上就沒有意義" 聽起來很好，沒錯吧? 我要強調的是英文as long as 表達出的是if and only if ， 「唯有X條件滿足了，Y才會成立。」 為什麼我們要把 "what we teach is wrong" 這個條件滿足呢? xxxxx 我仍然不排除，我過度解讀了這個expression，可以的話，請說服我。 :-) ※ 編輯: paulchi (182.234.66.11), 02/12/2015 13:00:08
→
02/12 13:40, , 5F
你貼的資料就已經解釋了
02/12 13:40, 5F
→
02/12 13:41, , 6F
use these alternatives to if if we want to emphas
02/12 13:41, 6F
→
02/12 13:41, , 7F
用if當然也可以 可是as long as更有強調意味
02/12 13:41, 7F
→
02/12 13:43, , 8F
按照你的翻法 將"才能"改成"才會"聽起來就正常多了
02/12 13:43, 8F
→
02/12 13:43, , 9F
唯有教錯的東西，我們才會把教學變得沒有意義
02/12 13:43, 9F
→
02/12 15:32, , 10F
明明翻成「只要／一旦教錯，教學就變成沒意義」就很順= =
02/12 15:32, 10F
→
02/12 15:33, , 11F
剛記錯原文　修正一下
02/12 15:33, 11F
→
02/12 15:35, , 12F
「只要／一旦我們教的東西錯了，教學就沒意義了」
02/12 15:35, 12F
→
02/12 15:40, , 13F
不過我看字典只寫它是等於if only耶
02/12 15:40, 13F
→
02/12 15:41, , 14F
也許你該想說現在不是在上數理/邏輯等課
02/12 15:41, 14F
推
02/12 15:51, , 15F
paulchi's interpretation is right.
02/12 15:51, 15F
如果今天學測英文翻譯題是這樣： 英文翻譯 (共八分) 1) 邪惡老師A: 我們該怎麼殘害國家幼苗呢? 你有什麼好方法? 2) 邪惡老師B: 別擔心，只要我們教的是錯的，我們的教學就沒有意義了。 (傑傑傑傑傑傑 [抱歉口字旁的打不出來]) 我的答案： As long as what we teach is wrong, teaching is meaningless. XDDDDD ※ 編輯: paulchi (182.234.66.11), 02/12/2015 16:52:30
→
02/12 17:13, , 16F
你真的是過度解讀了...陷入原筆者probably沒在想的表述
02/12 17:13, 16F
→
02/12 20:16, , 17F
看看字典對as long as的解釋: http://ppt.cc/BUzK
02/12 20:16, 17F
→
02/12 20:18, , 18F
再看看大家怎樣用: http://ppt.cc/M8np
02/12 20:18, 18F
→
02/12 20:19, , 19F
我覺得原文用法無明顯問題
02/12 20:19, 19F
→
02/12 20:22, , 20F
"No matter how...as a result"不能分開解釋
02/12 20:22, 20F
→
02/12 20:23, , 21F
不然能可能變成斷章取義了
02/12 20:23, 21F
推
02/12 23:15, , 22F
文中那部份確實不需要only if的意思，所以根據bbc
02/12 23:15, 22F
→
02/12 23:15, , 23F
的說明那樣用是不妥。但我想可能很多人用as long as
02/12 23:15, 23F
→
02/12 23:15, , 24F
時不是嚴謹的都是if and only if，只是語氣強烈的if
02/12 23:15, 24F
→
02/12 23:15, , 25F
吧
02/12 23:15, 25F
我仍無法被說服自己過度解讀 nik33您的字典連結在我看來反而正好reaffirm這個解讀耶 "used to say that something must happen before something else can happen" What we teach is wrong. -> what we teach must first be wrong. (...before something else CAN happen.) What we teach must first be wrong, then we CAN make teaching meaningless. There seems to be an implied intention to make teaching meaningless, wouldn't you agree? 或許這些都先撇過不談。不同意的大家，會怎麼翻上面的第二題翻譯? :-) ※ 編輯: paulchi (182.234.66.11), 02/12/2015 23:38:18 ※ 編輯: paulchi (182.234.66.11), 02/12/2015 23:40:07
→
02/13 00:20, , 26F
先不說英文了　個人覺得你認真這個的邊際效益已經→0了
02/13 00:20, 26F
推
02/13 08:48, , 27F
我個人覺得這個很有效益，謝謝
02/13 08:48, 27F
→
02/13 16:35, , 28F
中文的「只要」顯然有岐義（if或if and only if）
02/13 16:35, 28F
→
02/13 16:35, , 29F
第二題只是if
02/13 16:35, 29F
推
02/13 22:52, , 30F
中文的 if and only if 叫若且唯若 XD
02/13 22:52, 30F
推
03/03 14:15, , 31F
good time，t 可能比大家習慣聽的送氣少些，但照理不該影響
03/03 14:15, 31F
→
03/03 14:15, , 32F
辨認
03/03 14:15, 32F
‣ 更多 paulchi 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1Kt2jg17 (Eng-Class)
‣ 更多 paulchi 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1Kt2jg17 (Eng-Class)