作者dvlin (Dee)
看板ST-English
标题Re: [写作班第五周]台风-mingtai
时间Thu Dec 6 01:17:13 2007
我在想可能跟名词的格有关系
The disaster was caused
by a hurricane.
= A hurricane caused the disaster.
The disaster was caused
by strong winds.
= Strong winds caused the disaster.
The disaster was caused
by a hurricane
with its strong winds.
= A hurricane caused the disaster
with its strong winds.
文中原句:
"...hurricanes[,] which cause disasters mainly by[sic] their strong [winds],"
两个comma中间的dependent clause所描述的对象是hurricanes,
不是disaster也不是strong winds，所以strong winds变成hurricanes的「工具」。
这样不知道说不说得通?
※ 引述《mingtai1 (snake)》之铭言：
: 这个我也查了很久,我原本感觉似乎是两种说法都是可行的..
: 但是我两个外国朋友却都说by比较好
: 他们认为with通常是指accompany, 伴随着...或是用某种工具达成某件事
: (不同於by交通"工具"这种已经惯用的用法)
: 而by是"某个人或物"造成"某个结果"
: 根据Cambridge dictionary:
: by (CAUSE)
: preposition
: used to show the person or thing that does something:
: Ex.We were amazed by what she told us=>thing=what she told us,something=amazed
: 以文中的case, thing就是strong winds, something就是disasters,
: 套这说法似乎是通的
: 而With的解释如了伴随着,还有以下一种:
: with (METHOD)
: preposition
: using something:
: Ex. He was shot at close range with a pistol.
: 这人被枪射. 这里的with有种 使用某种工具的意味
: 套用到文中变成,hurricanes用strong wind做了disaster这件事.
: 如果将with翻成伴随,那也不合原意(风是原因, 不是伴随出现的东西)
: 相较之下, 似乎用by的解释" strong wind causes disaster" 来套用更适合
: 但我外国朋友给我最後一句最中肯的话..他说写像下面这样就绝对没有争议 Orz
: disasters were caused by hurricane katrina with strong wind
: 大家有什麽其他意见也能提出来讨论看看
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 99.231.10.180
※ 编辑: dvlin 来自: 99.231.10.180 (12/06 01:22)
1F：→ dvlin:修文完了 12/06 01:22
2F：推 mingtai1:我的感觉还是两种都有说的通的解释.一强调工具一强调原因 12/06 01:28
※ 编辑: dvlin 来自: 99.231.10.180 (12/06 01:31)
3F：推 dvlin:嗯 可是原句中不是已经有原因了吗? 12/06 01:33
4F：推 dvlin:which cause... (which = tornados and hurricanes) 12/06 01:33
5F：推 mingtai1:我意思是 套用剑桥字典对by(cause)的解释在那关系子句上 12/06 02:09
6F：→ mingtai1:which cause dis.. by strong wind==>这的by强调strong w 12/06 02:11
7F：→ mingtai1:ind造成了disaster. 12/06 02:12