英语找错

rogerk

哈哈，楼上的楼上 这位的意见我不太同意。效率不效率那是你的看法，论坛大家自由讨论，有兴趣地回帖，没兴趣的看看好玩。事事都非要那么高效率干吗？

在这里发言也不代表抬头就找不到洋人说话，干吗这么较真呢？ take it easy 。。。


至于楼上这位，自信是好的，但是盲目自负就不对了。对于我们来说英文不好没啥可不好意思地，毕竟他们说了几十年了，我们才说没多久。不过最好还是能认识到有差距。。。至于你狠狠地鄙视其他赞同的同学，那就太不靠谱了。

[ 本帖最后由 rogerk 于 2008-7-16 14:16 编辑 ]

bffbffbff

我的感觉是泡到鬼子的地方肯定是对语言帮助更大了

但对于我们成年后出国的人来说，用中文来讨论自己在英文环境里不清楚不明白的东西也是个更有效的捷径， 可能用中文１句话一个解释就把原来脑子里想了很久的疑问解决了，而在纯英文环境里，有些问题可能很久才能解决

addictive

感觉问题不大。
英语就是工具，不是学问
鬼佬怎么说，你怎么说 就可以了。

jasonliu234

嘿嘿，没有不可以讨论啊，只是。。。

我们讨论的问题是什么？

是英语是否地道？

请问判断地道的标准是什么？

在这，谁又有权威说自己英语地道的

如果有，请让我敬仰一下

如果没有，那么这样的讨论有什么意义？ 对我们有什么帮助？

人家阿朱，跑去问了鬼佬，回答是“还是写的很好的”，

我们还在把鬼佬认为写得很好的句子，改的更“地道”。

这本身不就说明了什么。。。

maribel

原帖由 Ausbear 于 2008-7-16 14:11 发表
一句话，要有自信。 刚刚一生气,
跑去指导了一个西人的Chinglish for half hour.

哈哈哈

请普教一下

Ausbear

>>至于楼上这位，自信是好的，但是盲目自负就不对了。对于我们来说英文不好没啥可不好意思地，毕竟他们说了几十年了，我们才说没多久。不过最好还是能认识到有差距。。。至于你狠狠地鄙视其他赞同的同学，那就太不靠谱了。

啥叫盲目自负？ 郁闷。操练老澳去了。

也鄙视你。

rogerk

本着耐心求证和大家共同学习的原则，寻找了一位洋人朋友就这个问题进行了深入讨论。。给他看了两个版本（原始的和我写的），洋人朋友虽然也说着原始版本是没什么大问题的，但是最后具体结论如下：

[2:46:44 PM] <E.B> e.g. probably the best answer I can give you is that no-one would speak like the first one, even in a formal context
[2:47:04 PM] <E.B> so I can read it and go "that's not right', but can't really say why it's not right

以下是对话全文。。有兴趣可以从头看：（请原谅instant messenger中的语法，拼写等等错误）

[2:29:30 PM] *** E.B is Online
[2:29:35 PM] <rogerk> hello, mate
[2:31:28 PM] <E.B> sup!
[2:31:48 PM] <rogerk> do you have a minute? I got an English question..
[2:31:53 PM] <E.B> shoot!
[2:32:24 PM] <rogerk> there is a message on a website which is temporarily down..
[2:32:26 PM] <rogerk> “We're Sorry...

We're unable to supply the service you have requested. This may be due to unavoidable technical problems or very high load on our site. We apologise for any inconvenience and anticipate that normal service will resume shortly.”

[2:32:38 PM] <rogerk> what I want to know is:
[2:33:03 PM] <rogerk> how do you think about this message, is it composed right?
[2:33:40 PM] <rogerk> or is it the usual way you express this meaning..
[2:35:02 PM] <E.B> It's a fairly formal way of putting it, but yea it seam right to me
[2:35:32 PM] <E.B> (although that's only in comparison to everyday spoken english, I have no idea if it conforms to english language syntax
[2:36:04 PM] <E.B> They could have said "This could be due.....', which is more like everyday speech
[2:36:12 PM] <rogerk> does it seems a bit strange in tone or wording it uses?
[2:36:30 PM] <E.B> yes, the tone is very formal, almost turse
[2:37:06 PM] <rogerk> So, if it were you, you would compose it in the same way, right?
[2:37:08 PM] <E.B> had they used 'could' instead of 'may', and added "for any inconvenience this has caused, it would be less formal.
[2:37:26 PM] <E.B> Given that It's for a technical/formal context I'd say it like:
[2:38:15 PM] <E.B> actually
[2:38:34 PM] <E.B> got it -> the problem is they've left out a lot of conjunctions in the sentence
[2:38:39 PM] <E.B> e.g. Id say it like this:
[2:40:06 PM] <E.B> "Sorry, we're undable to supply the service 'that' you have requested. This could be due to 'some 'unavoidable technical problems, or very high load on our website. We apologies for any inconvenience 'caused', and anticipate that normal service will resume shortly
[2:40:34 PM] <rogerk> sweet...
[2:40:41 PM] <rogerk> then, take a look at this one:
[2:40:47 PM] <E.B> the lack of conjunctions is fairly unusual, and may be a technique used when writing technical messages?!?!? not sure
[2:41:02 PM] <rogerk> Sorry...

The service you requested is not available due to unexpected technical problems or high loading on the site. We apologize for any inconvenience and we are working on restoring the service as soon as possible.
[2:41:22 PM] <rogerk> what do you think about this version comparing with the first one?
[2:41:31 PM] <E.B> ahhh, much better!
[2:41:33 PM] <E.B> did you write it?
[2:41:53 PM] <rogerk> yes, that's my version, but why this is better than previous one?
[2:42:19 PM] <E.B> take the case in point: "We're unable to supply the service you have requested."
[2:42:25 PM] <rogerk> I'd like to know the reason..
[2:42:30 PM] <E.B> if we add 'that' to it:
[2:42:35 PM] <E.B> We're unable to supply the service that you have requested.
[2:42:53 PM] <E.B> It becomes more like spoken english
[2:43:36 PM] <E.B> i think the conjunctions are the main reason, but also the original isn't how you start a sentence when speaking, so me it's not as good
[2:43:45 PM] <E.B> (this isn't a very good explaination)
[2:43:49 PM] <rogerk> so, the one I wrote is less formal than the first one, isn't it?
[2:43:54 PM] <E.B> yes
[2:43:57 PM] <E.B> no
[2:44:00 PM] <E.B> sorry:
[2:44:37 PM] <E.B> the one you wrote is still formal, but it is also friendly (for lack of a better description), because it is written more how you would say it in a conversation
[2:45:45 PM] <E.B> I've heard that if you learn english overseas you go through proper scentance construction and syntax etc...
[2:46:07 PM] <E.B> and while I did a very small amount of this in school, it's never really taught.
[2:46:44 PM] <E.B> e.g. probably the best answer I can give you is that no-one would speak like the first one, even in a formal context
[2:47:04 PM] <E.B> so I can read it and go "that's not right', but can't really say why it's not right
[2:47:19 PM] <E.B> sorry man-> not much help,
[2:47:31 PM] <rogerk> I see..I have the same feel and that what I want to confirm with you.

[ 本帖最后由 rogerk 于 2008-7-16 15:31 编辑 ]

Ausbear

赞lz的认真,算了，不鄙视你了。