[請益] that in the news

看板Eng-Class作者 (cycling)時間10年前 (2015/04/28 12:44), 10年前編輯推噓1(1023)
留言24則, 4人參與, 最新討論串1/1
原文 http://0rz.tw/GhCMK Saudi Arabia said Tuesday that it was halting a nearly month-old bombing campaign against a rebel group in neighboring Yemen that has touched off a devastating humanitarian crisis and threatened to ignite a broader regional conflict. 請問句子中第二個that是指什麼呢? (that has touched off) 從位置上看像Yemen, 但文意好像不是 另外請問有別的比較清楚的改寫方式嗎? 謝謝! -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 61.223.190.87 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1430196246.A.700.html

04/28 12:46, , 1F
指那個group
04/28 12:46, 1F

04/28 23:16, , 2F
"但文意好像不是"->這跟我們中文母語的人讀中文一樣,是
04/28 23:16, 2F

04/28 23:16, , 3F
「順著」意思讀/理解整體文意,而不是一個字(/詞)一個字(
04/28 23:16, 3F

04/28 23:16, , 4F
..)的在那裡拆解。「只看片段字面」的話確實會出現你講
04/28 23:16, 4F

04/28 23:17, , 5F
的情形,只是一般(英文母語的)人本來就不是"那樣子"在閱
04/28 23:17, 5F

04/28 23:17, , 6F
讀。他們已經習慣(一定程度複雜性的)這類"dangling
04/28 23:17, 6F

04/28 23:18, , 7F
modifier"(*1)。真正要達到"清楚的改寫"就只有拆開成多個
04/28 23:18, 7F

04/28 23:18, , 8F
短句--每個短句清楚交待個別的主詞,名詞,...
04/28 23:18, 8F

04/28 23:18, , 9F
(*1) Webster's Dictionary of English Usage 有提到。這
04/28 23:18, 9F

04/28 23:18, , 10F
也算是dangling modifier
04/28 23:18, 10F
謝謝 朋友說看下文可能是bombing campaign: The bombing campaign, which has received logistical and intelligence support from the United States, has drawn intense criticism for causing civilian deaths and for appearing to be detached from a broad military strategy. 可是這都隔段了 即使是NYTimes, dangling modifier可以這麼不清楚的嗎? (我更好奇母語讀者是怎麼訓練這種超非記憶力的@ @") ※ 編輯: bbbtri (36.235.0.166), 04/28/2015 23:46:57

04/29 00:07, , 11F
是bombing campaign沒錯 讀到最後幾段看看
04/29 00:07, 11F

04/29 00:08, , 12F
halt the bombings, which hit civilian targets w
04/29 00:08, 12F

04/29 00:08, , 13F
ith a regularity that human rights groups said c
04/29 00:08, 13F

04/29 00:08, , 14F
ould amount to war crimes.
04/29 00:08, 14F

04/29 00:10, , 15F
這事件的新聞也不是第一篇了 所以與其說開頭這樣的
04/29 00:10, 15F

04/29 00:11, , 16F
寫法是要求讀者解讀能力 不如說是要求有背景知識
04/29 00:11, 16F

04/29 00:16, , 17F
這個背景知識有點難度orz
04/29 00:16, 17F

04/29 00:17, , 18F
如果說Saudi Arabia said that it's devastating bombing
04/29 00:17, 18F

04/29 00:18, , 19F
campaign was halting. <--這樣有符合SA發言人的原意嗎?
04/29 00:18, 19F

04/29 00:35, , 20F
我猜是有點偏...原句devastating是形容誤殺平民而
04/29 00:35, 20F

04/29 00:36, , 21F
違反道義的抽象面向 直接修飾bombing感覺像是這場轟
04/29 00:36, 21F

04/29 00:37, , 22F
炸(物理上)把當地街坊地景炸得面目全非...I'm not
04/29 00:37, 22F

04/29 00:38, , 23F
sure...
04/29 00:38, 23F

04/29 08:19, , 24F
好的 謝謝!
04/29 08:19, 24F
文章代碼(AID): #1LFn0MS0 (Eng-Class)