Wednesday, August 26, 2009

I wish I (would?); You was born

I wish I .....
2. I wish I didn't have to work tomorrow.
CDB: Only 2 works everywhere.  ....

You was born

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

A murder

What do you call a murder?
A murder is a group of crows.
3. .....
I Just learned it from Homer(*1). I guess he wasn't that stupid after all.
(*1)The Simpsons
Episode: Weekend at Burnsie's


      After reading isseyboo's I am so mad right now!, I remembered something my brother told me not long after he came to the States. He said, at a parking lot of a shopping center, a little kid called him "Chinese pig!" The kid's mother stopped the kid right away and apologized to my brother. I asked my brother "So .... how did you feel?" He said he felt great. I was puzzled by his answer, so I asked him. He said he used to do that kind of thing so he didn't feel offended or anything.
      I won't go into great lengths about what kind of things he did to other people because I don't know (and I didn't ask him). One thing I do know is that he has such strong self-confidence and esteem (or like the Chinese slang "thick face"--not in the sense of shamelessness) that when he was called names, he simply didn't care. I really have to give it to him.
      Did those kind of things ever happen to me? None I'm aware of. I guess I've been lucky in that respect. If it ever does happen, well, I guess I'll just think of my brother.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

否定問句->Yes, No?


用Google Books(專找英文出版品)來看看實際的使用:輸入下方(雙引號也要)
"No, they are"   -"they are not"

"Yes, they are ..." --> "Yes"是和後面的敘述一致
"No, they are ..." --> "No"是全盤否定前頭的整個敘述/句子。有時候可以這樣子寫以避免那種"規則" --> "No; they are ...." 或是乾脆 "No. They are ...." 或是很激動的 --> "No! They are ..."

2 的這情況其實在(北美)產的電視劇/電影裡頭可以聽到。有的劇情是問話的人用了否定句,然後回答的人只說了個"No!"(/ "Yes!"),然後趕緊改回"Yes!"(/ "No!"),然後整個混了。或是問話的人會另外問"No? You mean No,... or No,......"


Thursday, August 20, 2009

Who's Adam Stanler?

Adam Sandler stops by local lemonade stand (08/19/09)
(1:11) I sold my lemonate and uhm... to uhm... (1:18)Adam Stanler .....

I'm sure Mr. Sandler doesn't mind.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

that non-defining


以下出於cambridge的 Advanced Grammar in use

e.g.Thieves [who] stole painting from Notford art gallery have been arrested in Paris.


e.g.The drugs,[which/that] are used to treat stomach ulcer,have been withdrawn from sale.

(My) A:

> e.g.The drugs,[which/that] are used to treat stomach ulcer,have been withdrawn from sale.

這句是不是完全照書上打的?(cambridge的 Advanced Grammar in use)


> 但是那本書上類似的題型都是以non defining clause為答案,
> 我就有點不大懂為什麼會這樣


我附近的書局沒Cambridge那本書,有在圖書館查詢網路找到,但是是在別的town,我訂來看了,只是要花個一兩天才會送到我這邊的圖書館,到時我再看看是怎麼一回事.....(有新的發現我再回報 :p )

Nonrestrictive clauses are now nearly always introduced by "which" or "who" (although "that" was common in earlier centuries)
(*2)Which / that
But, 'that' can only be used in what we call identifying relative clauses....
(註: 限定關係XX中的「限定」的英文有很多種說法,指的都是一樣的東西,比如defining, identifying, essential, ..等等)

> 以下出於cambridge的 Advanced Grammar in use

你的是不是綠皮第二版? 我從圖書館借到的應是初版十刷(First published 1999, Tenth printing 2003). Printed in Great Britain by BemroseBooth, Derby

書皮是暗紅棕色,有附解答(ISBN 0-521-49868-6)


Relative Clauses (2) (Tom, who is only six, can speak three languages.)
When we use a non-defining relative clause to add information about a thing or group of things, we use which as the subject or object of the clause:
  * These drugs, which are used to treat stomach ulcers, have been withdrawn from sale.
  * That Masters course, which I took in 1990, is no longer taught at the college.

That is sometimes used instead of which, but some people think this is incorrect, so it is probably safer not to use it. We also use which to refer to the whole situation talked about in the sentence outside the relative clause:
  * The book won't be published until next year, which is disappointing.
  * I have to go to hospital on Monday, which means I won't be able to see you.


今天在Harvard Coop書局找到新版的Advanced Grammar In Use(2nd edition),還真的是如同sung說的。好奇下我翻了同系列的Grammar In Use Intermediate(不同作者),在講relative clause的non-defining部分卻是說"...must use 'which' ..... (not 'what'....)",連"that"都沒有提到...



    所以作者之前應該是用這樣的邏輯去寫 "that" 在賣葯的那句子的寫

No... 我比較過同本書初版和第二版同一章節的內容,原作者在新版裡頭確實是如同原PO說的在非限定關代的情況下"可以"使用that.(初版的解釋則是建議不要這樣子用)。然後同樣的練習題在初版的答案是which,第二版則是改成that(或是that也可以)(比如原PO問的那幾題)


Longman Dictionary ( way more in American version)

e.g. wicker: ..... candle, that burns ....