TPS News

Answer: We believe the sentence is best completed this way:

“My actual textbook weighs just under two pounds, the e-book version about half that, but the real weight of each is measured in how much I carry away.”

Most of this sentence is concerned with physical mass, a measurement of heft. This theme is completed in abstract terms, in how much learning a person can pick up and “carry away” from the text. Actually, while the volume of knowledge indeed can be calculated (in vocabulary, for example), a knowledgeable person and his ignorant twin won’t scale differently. Brains don’t get heavier as they are primed and loaded. Yet the imagery works in the abstract, with a person metaphorically putting down a paper or electronic book and lugging off new understanding.
例句大部分討論物體質量，描述物體的重量，但最後以抽象描述收尾，敘述一個人可以從書本裡學到、「帶走」多少知識。事實上，雖然知識的多寡確實可以計算（例如以詞彙的數量計算），飽學的人與不學無術者卻不會因為知識改變體重；大腦受到啟發、學習，重量並不增加。然而，這句抽象描述的意象卻言之成理，用隱喻說明一個人放下紙本書或電子書後，帶走新的知識。

No formula exists for the writing of a superior sentence, but this much is known: The best sentence has no weak part. The following sentence is incomplete. In 5 or fewer words, complete the sentence in a way that strengthens the whole of it. The first TPS Fan to complete the sentence as we believe it is best completed will win a NTD200 7-11 / Starbucks Gift Certificate. Another Starbucks certificate will be awarded to the first Fan to complete it in an alternate way that, in our estimation, also is effective. The explanation and the names of the winners will be published tomorrow on this TPS Fans page.
怎麼寫出好句子沒有標準答案，不過起碼我們知道，優秀的句子每個環節都很完美。下面有一句未完成的句子，請用五個字以內完成句子接龍，寫出完整的句子。最先完成句子，並寫出最佳解答的一位TPS 粉絲，將獲得兩百元7-11／星巴克禮券；另增設特別獎一名，頒給符合文意又別具創意的粉絲。接龍解答與獲獎粉絲姓名將在明天公布於本 TPS 專頁，敬請密切鎖定、先睹為快！

題目Contest Sentence:

“My actual textbook weighs just under two pounds, the e-book version about half that, but the practical value of each is measured in ___ ___ ___ ___ ___.”

很多字詞並非表面所見的意思，字詞的組合會產生不同的解釋。這樣的慣用法，我們稱之為「比喻」。一個成功的比喻，作者本身必須相當瞭解字詞的源起。以下的句子為讀者介紹一個比喻及其來源。
Imagery buries itself in language and takes on new meaning. The transplanted and transformed sets of words are called “figures of speech.” For a figure of speech to be effective, however, a writer must first understand the original meaning of the phrase. The following sentence contains a common figure of speech. Its original meaning is explained.

“In beginning the volatile laboratory experiment before preliminary data were completely analyzed, the chemist risked a Faustian outcome, and perhaps an explosive one.”
「化學家在完全分析初步數據前，就冒險進行揮發性實驗，很可能得到浮士德式的結果，或許還會爆炸。」

Faust was a legendary German man who became so enamored of his learning and of the prestige of scholarship that he was ready to sacrifice everything else to it. The devil accommodated his desire. In return for worldly esteem and constant steeping in knowledge, Faust agreed to give up his soul at the end of his days and be eternally damned. Some versions of the story suggest that Faust was so completely absorbed in his preoccupation with pleasure and knowledge that he didn’t see the inevitable sadness of his choice. He believed he could outwit the devil in the end.
浮士德是德國傳說中的人物，他沉迷於研究學問，迷戀學術地位帶來的威望，願意犧牲一切來交換。魔鬼能完成浮士德的願望，而浮士德同意死後放棄他的靈魂，永遠受到詛咒，以交換世俗的地位、永遠沉浸在知識中。故事的某些版本暗示，浮士德完全沉醉在樂趣與知識中，看不出自己的選擇終將以悲劇收場，還以為自己最後能智取魔鬼。

In the given sentence, a chemist is exhibiting characteristics similar to the legendary figure. He seems impatient to learn and to succeed and is willing to risk all by rushing ahead without thoroughly thinking through the consequences. By saying the scientist is in jeopardy of experiencing a “Faustian outcome,” the writer is signaling that the experiment is apt to turn out unexpectedly and probably unhappily. Furthermore, because the experiment is a “volatile” one, it could be explosive to boot. A future event described in Faustian terms is never a positive one.
例句中，化學家的性格就像傳說中的浮士德，似乎等不及去學習、等不及有所成就，寧願賭上一切匆促追求成功，卻未仔細考慮後果。例句中說化學家將處於危險，得到 “Faustian outcome”（浮士德式的結果），表示實驗結果可能不如人意。此外，因為試驗是 “volatile”（揮發性）的，所以結果也很可能會爆炸。用浮士德來描述的未來事件，通常具有負面意涵。

並非所有與學術議題相關的文章，就能稱之為「學術文章」。本篇專欄將節錄不同學術議題的內容，分析常見的寫作錯誤，並分享潤修與寫作的技巧。
Not all articles written on academic topics are written in proper academic English. In this "This is not academic writing" column we examine short excerpts from academic texts to illustrate common writing errors and explain how to correct them.

Unacceptable 不被認可的文章

“The linguistic academic community revolves round the utter practicality of its work. Because language is central to life, the exploration and teaching of it is a life-enhancing activity. The breaking down of words, phrases, and entire texts into component parts is pretty much like the work of engineers, who take apart a machine to understand its workings before trying to improve it. In the same way do linguists systematically explore expression, linking together the hardware of language (words) with software (meaning) to produce an unparalleled communication media.”

This writing is marred by a few poor choices, but is not a generally poor example of scholarly writing. For example, the writer used the diminutive “round,” instead of “around” in the first sentence when the latter would have read more smoothly; the cadence of a sentence is important. Also, to say language is “central to life” overstates its importance. It is sufficient to characterize language as essential. In the third sentence, “parsing” would have been perfect usage instead of the descriptive but clunky “breaking down.” The most egregious failure was the errant use of the plural “media” instead of “medium.” What other weaknesses do you see?
這段文章有幾個失誤攪局，不過就學術寫作而言整體不算很差勁。首先，第一句中，作者以較短的 “round” 取代 “around”，但 “around” 唸起來會比較順口，別忘了句子的抑揚頓挫很重要。另外，形容語言 “central to life”（是生活中心）有點言過其實，只要說生活中少不了語言就足夠了。第三句以 “breaking down” 來形容太臃腫笨拙，用 “parsing”（解析）就好得多。最叫人目瞪口呆的錯誤是用錯了複數的 “media”，正確用法應該是 “medium”（媒介）。你還找出了那些缺點呢？

Acceptable 認可的文章

“The linguistic academic community revolves around the utter practicality of its work. Because language is an essence of life, the exploration and teaching of it is a life-enhancing activity. The parsing of words, phrases, and entire texts into component parts is akin to the work of engineers, who disassemble a machine to understand its workings before trying to improve it. In the same way do linguists systematically explore expression, deftly mating the hardware of language (words) with software (meaning) to produce an unparalleled communication medium.”

Correct best answer: Replace “inquest” with “inquiry.”

“Scientific inquiry is the clinical analysis of subject matter, with the brain given the task of finding truth and the heart reserved for celebrating the discovery.”

Similar words can disrupt communication, even when the wrong word means almost the same as the right one. While both “inquest” and “inquiry” are rooted in the idea of asking questions, they are not interchangeable. Inquest is an official or judicial questioning process, whereas inquiry— in this case, scientific inquiry—is an unofficial examination of fact conducted by many people or as few as one. Both inquest and inquiry are cerebral activities, but the dynamics are somewhat in conflict. In fact, a judicial scientific inquiry is a paradoxical, probably unworkable, concept.
相似的詞彙會妨礙溝通，即使錯誤的詞彙和正確的詞彙意思很相近也是如此。“Inquest”（質詢） 和 “inquiry”（詢問）最根本的意思都是問問題，但兩者不能互換使用；質詢是正式或司法的審訊過程，而詢問，在此指科學探究，則是非正式的檢驗事實，可能由好幾個人進行，或僅由一人進行。質詢或詢問都是智力活動，但活動的本質卻有點衝突；「判決式科學探究」是個矛盾的概念，或許根本是不成立的概念。

撰寫學術文章時，每字每句都需要謹慎著墨。改變幾個字就會使完整的一句話變得令人摸不著頭緒。下列的句子中，為使這句話能完整且有意義的表達，請選出你認為會令人感到困惑的字，我們將提供7-11/星巴克咖啡NTD200元禮券，給予挑出混淆字，並寫出最佳替代字的第1位粉絲，最適的解答與獲獎的粉絲姓名，將於明天公佈於本TPS的專頁。請將你的答案寫在下方，獲得免費購物禮券的幸運兒可能就是你哦!
Every word is important in a well-written academic paper. Changing just a word or two can turn a clear sentence into a confusing one. Tell us what word you would change in the following puzzling sentence to render it more meaningful. The first best answer will receive a NTD200 7-11/Starbucks Gift Certificate.

題目Contest Sentence:
“Scientific inquest is the clinical analysis of subject matter, with the brain given the task of finding truth and the heart reserved for celebrating the discovery.”

很多字詞並非表面所見的意思，字詞的組合會產生不同的解釋。這樣的慣用法，我們稱之為「比喻」。一個成功的比喻，作者本身必須相當瞭解字詞的源起。以下的句子為讀者介紹一個比喻及其來源。
Imagery buries itself in language and takes on new meaning. The transplanted and transformed sets of words are called “figures of speech.” For a figure of speech to be effective, however, a writer must first understand the original meaning of the phrase. The following sentence contains a common figure of speech. Its original meaning is explained.

“Under the electron microscope, the nerve fibers and blood veins were shown to be elegantly threaded throughout the body.”
「在電子顯微鏡下，全身的神經纖維與血管優雅地交織在一起。」

“Thread” has a lengthy history in garment-making. The use of a long, continuous fiber to stitch and adorn goes back thousands of years. A thread is meticulously inserted in a garment and then woven and out of it according to a pattern; when drawn tight, the unbroken thread affixes one piece of a garment to another. In decorative uses, the thread is woven into the fabric for display rather than for function. In every case, the path of the thread is uniform and the tolerances close so that the threaded product is enhanced, either in usefulness or in beauty.
“Thread”（絲線）用於製造服裝歷史悠久，以纖長連續的纖維縫製、裝飾衣物，歷史可追溯自數千年前。將絲線仔細穿入衣料，以固定的模式穿梭編織、拉緊，連續的絲線就結合服裝的不同部分。絲線編織在布料上、用來裝飾時，是為了讓服裝美觀，而非為了實用目的。無論實用或裝飾，絲線都必須遵循一定的模式編織，而且每針的差距不能太大，這樣織成的服裝才會實用而美觀。

In the sentence about a laboratory observation, “threaded” refers not at all to a continuous strand of twisted cotton or some other fiber. Rather, the allusion is to human cells that have been formed into nerve axions and blood vein walls. The nerves and veins are said to be threaded throughout the body, which is to say they run continuously from toe to head; they are purely functional, transmitting messages and delivering life-assuring blood. The writer (unnecessarily) adds the adverb “elegantly” to ascribe to the cellular structures a sense of human majesty.
本句討論實驗室中的觀察，“thread” 並非指捻在一起的棉紗或其他纖維，而是比喻人體的細胞形成神經束與血管網絡；神經與血管在全身交織，從頭到腳連續不斷，並且有其功能，即傳導訊號與輸送維繫生命的血液。作者還（多此一舉地）加上副詞 “elegantly”（優雅地），讓細胞結構多了一股奧妙人體的感覺。

Answer: We believe the sentence is best completed this way:

“Subsequent generations of the skittering laboratory mice were bred to prefer wine-soaked grain and soon exhibited all the erratic behavior of alcoholics.”

The four words complete the picture of experimental animals being turned into lushes. The entire sentence has to do with body control. The mice are described as “skittering,” which is jittery movement typical of small, light, darting animals. After being bred to like alcohol, the skittering of the mice is turned into the unpredictable, “erratic” movement of drunken animals, the animals’ natural gracefulness impaired. The physical reaction to the alcohol is correctly described as “behavior,” which underscores that the mice are still mice, with only their movements altered.
加上這四個字，便完整描繪出實驗動物轉變為酒鬼。句子討論身體控制，形容小鼠動作 “skittering”（蹦蹦跳跳），動作快速的小型動物經常出現這種神經過敏的動作。經過培育後，小鼠偏好酒精，動作從蹦蹦跳跳變成捉摸不定，“erratic”（反覆無常），就像喝醉了一樣，失去天生均衡的美感。以 “behavior”（行為）描述酒精造成的肢體動作很恰當，強調小鼠本質未變，仍是小鼠，只是動作不同。

No formula exists for the writing of a superior sentence, but this much is known: The best sentence has no weak part. The following sentence is incomplete. In 5 or fewer words, complete the sentence in a way that strengthens the whole of it. The first TPS Fan to complete the sentence as we believe it is best completed will win a NTD200 7-11 / Starbucks Gift Certificate. Another Starbucks certificate will be awarded to the first Fan to complete it in an alternate way that, in our estimation, also is effective. The explanation and the names of the winners will be published tomorrow on this TPS Fans page.
怎麼寫出好句子沒有標準答案，不過起碼我們知道，優秀的句子每個環節都很完美。下面有一句未完成的句子，請用五個字以內完成句子接龍，寫出完整的句子。最先完成句子，並寫出最佳解答的一位TPS 粉絲，將獲得兩百元7-11／星巴克禮券；另增設特別獎一名，頒給符合文意又別具創意的粉絲。接龍解答與獲獎粉絲姓名將在明天公布於本 TPS 專頁，敬請密切鎖定、先睹為快！

題目Contest Sentence:

“Subsequent generations of the skittering laboratory mice were bred to prefer wine-soaked grain and soon exhibited all the ____ ____ ____ ____ ____.”

並非所有與學術議題相關的文章，就能稱之為「學術文章」。本篇專欄將節錄不同學術議題的內容，分析常見的寫作錯誤，並分享潤修與寫作的技巧。
Not all articles written on academic topics are written in proper academic English. In this "This is not academic writing" column we examine short excerpts from academic texts to illustrate common writing errors and explain how to correct them.

Unacceptable 不被認可的文章

“Fish have been a staple of man’s diet for at least 40,000 years; archaeologists have uncovered evidence from that long ago of ancient human consumption of the saltwater and freshwater fishes in eastern Asia. Methods of catching them through the millennia have ranged from skewering the fishes with spears to capturing them in submerged baskets. In ensuing centuries, the baskets changed into netting and the spears into hooks and lines, and most of the fishes changed into something else, too. One fish that didn’t change—the coelacanth—dates back about 360 million years. Occasionally a living specimen of the large fish with glowing green eyes is caught by unsuspecting fishermen.”

This passage gives a rudimentary introduction to the practice of fishing. Unfortunately, the writer displays only rudimentary understanding of language. A cliché—“a staple of man’s diet”—is more accurately and pleasingly stated this way: “eaten by humans.” The writer gets wordy—“skewering the fish with spears”—when a simple “spearing the fish” will do. It is unknown why the writer consistently uses the awkward-sounding “fishes” when “fish” is commonly accepted as the plural form of the word. And the modifier “about” is used inappropriately in “about 360 million years,” as if the writer is uncertain if it was 360 million years ago or, perhaps, just 359 and a half million years ago! What other questionable language usage do you see?
這段文章初步介紹捕魚的方法，很可惜，作者的寫作技巧也很初步。首先，與其用 “a staple of man’s diet”（人類的主食）這種陳腔濫調，不如用 “eaten by humans”（為人所食用）來得精確適當。而 “skewering the fish with spears”（用魚叉叉魚）也太囉嗦，簡單說 “spearing the fish”（叉魚）就可以了。此外，作者不知為何一直用 “fishes” 這個拗口的詞，通常 “fish” 即可當作複數名詞。此外 “about 360 million years”（約三億六千萬年）這裡 “about” 一詞也用得不恰當，作者是想確認到底是三億六千萬年前，還是只有三億五千九百五十萬年前嗎？你還看到其他有問題的用法嗎？

Acceptable 認可的文章

“Fish have been eaten by humans for at least 40,000 years; archaeologists have uncovered evidence from that long ago of ancient consumption of the saltwater and freshwater creatures by eastern Asian people. Methods of capture through the millennia have ranged from spearing the fish to enclosing them in submerged baskets. In ensuing centuries, the basketry evolved into netting and the spears into hook-and-line devices, and most of the fish evolved, too. One that hasn’t—the coelacanth—dates back 360 million years. Occasionally, a living specimen of the large fish with phosphorescent green eyes is hauled to the surface by startled fishermen.”