[文法] that we imagine were thought的結構？

看板Eng-Class作者 (QQ)時間9年前 (2016/08/05 22:20), 9年前編輯推噓3(3推 0噓 27→)
留言30則, 6人參與, 最新討論串1/1
direct speech When we report people's words, thoughts, beliefs etc, we can give the exact words (more or less) that were said, or that we imagine were thought. This kind of structure is called 'direct speech' (though it is used for reporting thoughts as well as speech). ---------- 大家好，想請問上述這句話： we can give the exact words (more or less) that were said, or that we imagine were thought. 第一個形容詞子句that were said→能理解 第二個形容詞子句that we imagine were thought→不懂 我的理解是 that代替the exact words 若是 we can give the exact words (more or less) that were thought→此時that當主詞 或 we can give the exact words (more or less) that we imagine→此時that當受詞 怎麼會that we imagine were thought？ 還是說，可以把we imagine理解成是「補充說明」，想成這樣： we can give the exact words (more or less) that (we imagine) were thought. 請問各位了，謝謝！ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 114.32.32.215 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1470406808.A.D72.html ※ 編輯: scju (114.32.32.215), 08/05/2016 23:38:07
→
08/05 23:45, , 1F
".... 成是「補充說明」，..." -> Yes
08/05 23:45, 1F
→
08/05 23:45, , 2F
http://tinyurl.com/z2533d7 "... it's parenthetical.."
08/05 23:45, 2F
→
08/05 23:45, , 3F
Quirk的文法書有"嘗試"用更精確/細部的文法標籤去歸類/解
08/05 23:45, 3F
→
08/05 23:46, , 4F
釋(pushdown ...-element: 一個子句裡頭又包一個子句的變
08/05 23:46, 4F
→
08/05 23:46, , 5F
化現象)。只是單純想要理解這用法/意思的話，前者"quick
08/05 23:46, 5F
→
08/05 23:46, , 6F
and dirty tips"講的就夠了
08/05 23:46, 6F
D大你好，我看不太懂那網頁舉的例子@@ 例如： He is the man who Peter, Paul, and Mary heartily believe is Sir Fragalot. 就算把中間視為補充說明好了，省略後成為： He is the man who is Sir Fragalot. 文法是沒錯，但這樣的句子意義在哪裡？ 何不直接寫成這樣就好：He is Sir Fragalot. 而且原例子似乎改成這樣更好： That he is the man who Peter, Paul, and Mary heartily believe is Sir Fragalot. --- 我猜想，無論是 we can give the exact words (more or less) that we imagine were thought. 或 He is the man who Peter, Paul, and Mary heartily believe is Sir Fragalot. 都似乎是一種「取巧」的寫法，也就是那個that和who既可解釋成後面動詞的受詞， 也可解釋成後面BE動詞的主詞，這樣就可以用最節省的字數，一次表達兩種意思。 但應該這不是正規寫法吧，學習者會跟我一樣有疑惑QQ ※ 編輯: scju (114.32.32.215), 08/06/2016 00:35:17
→
08/06 00:54, , 7F
囧...不要太習慣把省略當作分析文法的工具啊
08/06 00:54, 7F
→
08/06 00:55, , 8F
網頁那句重點就在於說明是Peter等人認為是Sir Fraga
08/06 00:55, 8F
→
08/06 00:56, , 9F
lot的 你把這邊去掉了當然看不出意義啊
08/06 00:56, 9F
→
08/06 01:04, , 10F
(應該說 省略前要想過哪些地方是必要傳達的資訊)
08/06 01:04, 10F
推
08/06 01:09, , 11F
月經文 類似問題問到爛了 都是看不懂更不知道去哪找答案
08/06 01:09, 11F
→
08/06 01:10, , 12F
夠正規了
08/06 01:10, 12F
→
08/06 01:11, , 13F
「取巧」的不是寫法 而是用「補充方法」去理解這種句子
08/06 01:11, 13F
→
08/06 01:12, , 14F
Peter, Paul, and Mary heartily believe (that) the man
08/06 01:12, 14F
→
08/06 01:13, , 15F
is Sir Fragalot. 今天要強調 the man 改寫一下就變上面的
08/06 01:13, 15F
→
08/06 01:15, , 16F
你把the man往前移 believe就跟is碰在一起
08/06 01:15, 16F
→
08/06 01:16, , 17F
看不懂的人就傻眼 "阿一個句子怎麼會有兩個動詞"
08/06 01:16, 17F
這真的是已經問到爛的問題嗎@@ 若按照T大的說法，那第一句該怎麼解釋呢？ 第二句用我前面的想法，也就是名詞子句的方式來寫，應該比較好懂吧： That He is the man who Peter, Paul, and Mary heartily believe is Sir Fragalot. 不過第一句好像就沒辦法用這樣的方式改寫，意思會不對。 ※ 編輯: scju (1.169.70.234), 08/06/2016 19:10:16
推
08/06 19:43, , 18F
一、二句還是用補充說明較容易懂;第二句改用That子句
08/06 19:43, 18F
→
08/06 19:45, , 19F
感覺語意有點怪，而且較正確文法要將who改成whom
08/06 19:45, 19F
→
08/06 21:26, , 20F
純粹是 that were said, or that were thought. 中間
08/06 21:26, 20F
→
08/06 21:26, , 21F
差個 we imagine 來區分報導「想法」與「說」 差在想
08/06 21:26, 21F
→
08/06 21:26, , 22F
法可能是 we imagine 的。
08/06 21:26, 22F
→
08/06 21:27, , 23F
我又錯字了: 插入 insert
08/06 21:27, 23F
推
08/06 22:39, , 24F
都告訴你怎麼來的 你還是堅信你想的 那還要講什麼 對牛彈琴
08/06 22:39, 24F
→
08/06 22:41, , 25F
1.we can give the exact words.
08/06 22:41, 25F
→
08/06 22:42, , 26F
2.we imagine (that) the words were thought.
08/06 22:42, 26F
→
08/06 22:43, , 27F
把兩句併成一句就是原始的句子
08/06 22:43, 27F
T大火氣不小喔，連「對牛彈琴」說出口了，呵呵： 1.並不只是我，上述至少有三位推文者都認為這類句子當「補充說明」來解釋較好。 獨排眾議的可是您喔——。 2.如果照您的解釋來看， we imagine (that) the words were thought. 後半部和前一句重複的元素是the words，可充當關係代名詞，再加以改成形容詞子句。 對此我有個新想法： 換個角度思考其實可發現，the words were thought本身就是結構完整的子句， 而「we imagine」這個部分反倒可以視為是「外加上去補充句意」的主要子句， 因此， we can give the exact words. we imagine (that) the words were thought. 合併為一句後，「we imagine」依然作為補充句意所用， 也就是我們前面講半天的「補充說明」。 不正殊途同歸嗎？ (關鍵在於，由重複元素the words改寫而來的關係代名詞that得作為兩句的銜接， 所以要前移，緊鄰至先行詞the exact words後面，因此就跑到we imagine前面， 也就容易讓人混淆了。) ※ 編輯: scju (1.169.70.234), 08/07/2016 01:09:26
→
08/07 01:20, , 28F
插入語 end
08/07 01:20, 28F
→
08/07 13:53, , 29F
第二句頭你加了that，整句變成只是個名詞子句。沒人
08/07 13:53, 29F
→
08/07 13:53, , 30F
這樣表達的
08/07 13:53, 30F
K大你好 第二句我原本要表達的概念是這樣： [That he is the man who Peter, Paul, and Mary heartily believe] is Sir Fragalot. 也就是 名詞子句+V+C 的形式 不過算了^^ 感謝版上先進們的解說，我已理解這類句子其實是由名詞子句改寫而成的形容詞子句， 所以前面會多一個原本那個名詞子句前面的主要子句， 而那個主要子句可視為名詞子句的補充說明。 ※ 編輯: scju (1.169.70.234), 08/07/2016 15:25:45
‣ 更多 scju 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1NfA2Oro (Eng-Class)