[請益] will not last ... until
請問以下兩句如何解讀？是否題目出錯了？
Some experts estimate that the persent supply of fossil fuel
will not last until the end of the twentieth century. (中二中閱測)
According to some experts, the supply of fossil fuel
will last until the end of this century. (該題正確答案)
(專家估計化石燃料的供應撐不到世紀末啦。)
一邊是 will not last ... until
另一邊是 will last ... until
很奇怪喔！這兩句怎麼會有同樣的意思呢？
再來看看其它例子：
Is the United States going to last till the end of time? (來源quora.com,下同)
(美國是否能一直存在，直到時間的盡頭？)
The US will not last until the end of time. Our planet's habitability will
only endure another billion years at best.
(美國無法生存到最後，因為我們的星球最多只能再住1B年。)
這篇文章也在標題與內文分別用了看似相反的句型：一個沒有 not，一個有 not
標題可以理解，但內文的 not last until 就很奇怪了！
我認為「中二中題目」與「美國留存」這兩組例子中的 not until 句子，
最小程度應該要改成 will not last after ... 才對，但仍需再進一步修飾。
The supply will not last until the end of the 20th century.
--> The supply will not last after the end of the 20th century.
The US will not last until the end of time.
--> The US will not last after the end of time.
為何 will not last until 可以解讀成 「在 until 的時間之後，就 not last」？
感覺上有點像在中文「直到...才...」的慣性思考下，所發生的中翻英錯誤？
實際搜尋網路也很少發現此種用法。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 1.171.2.112
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1492000178.A.7B9.html
→
04/12 22:25, , 1F
04/12 22:25, 1F
→
04/12 22:55, , 2F
04/12 22:55, 2F
→
04/12 22:55, , 3F
04/12 22:55, 3F
→
04/12 22:57, , 4F
04/12 22:57, 4F
→
04/12 22:58, , 5F
04/12 22:58, 5F
→
04/12 22:59, , 6F
04/12 22:59, 6F