What does that mean? 你真的瞭解這個慣用語嗎?
2011-06-30
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.
“When the butterfly landed on the petri dish, its wayward flight around the laboratory apparently at an end, it folded up its stained-glass wings—like sails poised for another liberating breeze.”
「就在蝴蝶降落在培養皿上，不再繞著實驗室隨意飛行，合攏彩色玻璃般的雙翅，就像靜止的船帆，等待另一股啟程的微風。」
“Like sails poised for another liberating breeze” alludes to the synthetic sailcloth on wind-driven boats. Like a butterfly wing, it usually is ribbed and sectioned by stitching rather than being of a single piece, with the different sections sometimes being of contrasting colors. It is raised up a mast so that wind can collide with the face of it. The result is that an unanchored boat is pressured to move in the direction of the wind, or in a glancing degree of it.
「就像靜止的船帆，等待另一股啟程的微風」，暗指仰賴風力以推進船隻所使用的合成帆布。帆布就像蝴蝶翅膀，通常有骨幹，藉由縫線將整面帆布區分為不同部分，每部分有時會呈現截然不同的顏色。風帆沿船桅升起，讓帆面迎風鼓起，未下錨的船隻受風推動，往風吹的方向或略偏的方向移動。
In employing the phrase as a simile to describe the actions of a butterfly at rest, the writer hopes to accomplish two things: (1) accurately portray the placement of the butterfly’s wings when not in flight; that is, erect and extended, rather than folded away like a bird’s; and (2) convey the exasperation of a researcher who evidently suffered a reversal when the subject of his experimentation unexpectedly took flight. The next sentence in the paper presumably explained that the butterfly was hastily netted, chloroformed and examined. Had the writer / experimenter related the incident less colorfully, the paper would have been rendered less readable / enjoyable.
作者用風帆比喻蝴蝶靜止時的動作，希望達成兩種效果：(1) 正確描繪蝴蝶靜止時翅膀是延展而豎起的，不像鳥類翅膀收折；(2) 傳達實驗對象突然飛起來，讓研究者大吃一驚、怒氣沖沖的模樣。文章接下來應該會描述到研究者匆忙網住蝴蝶、用氯仿將蝴蝶麻醉，並仔細實驗觀察。若非作者或實驗人員描述事件如此生動，文章就不會這麼有趣易懂了。
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.
“When the butterfly landed on the petri dish, its wayward flight around the laboratory apparently at an end, it folded up its stained-glass wings—like sails poised for another liberating breeze.”
「就在蝴蝶降落在培養皿上，不再繞著實驗室隨意飛行，合攏彩色玻璃般的雙翅，就像靜止的船帆，等待另一股啟程的微風。」
“Like sails poised for another liberating breeze” alludes to the synthetic sailcloth on wind-driven boats. Like a butterfly wing, it usually is ribbed and sectioned by stitching rather than being of a single piece, with the different sections sometimes being of contrasting colors. It is raised up a mast so that wind can collide with the face of it. The result is that an unanchored boat is pressured to move in the direction of the wind, or in a glancing degree of it.
「就像靜止的船帆，等待另一股啟程的微風」，暗指仰賴風力以推進船隻所使用的合成帆布。帆布就像蝴蝶翅膀，通常有骨幹，藉由縫線將整面帆布區分為不同部分，每部分有時會呈現截然不同的顏色。風帆沿船桅升起，讓帆面迎風鼓起，未下錨的船隻受風推動，往風吹的方向或略偏的方向移動。
In employing the phrase as a simile to describe the actions of a butterfly at rest, the writer hopes to accomplish two things: (1) accurately portray the placement of the butterfly’s wings when not in flight; that is, erect and extended, rather than folded away like a bird’s; and (2) convey the exasperation of a researcher who evidently suffered a reversal when the subject of his experimentation unexpectedly took flight. The next sentence in the paper presumably explained that the butterfly was hastily netted, chloroformed and examined. Had the writer / experimenter related the incident less colorfully, the paper would have been rendered less readable / enjoyable.
作者用風帆比喻蝴蝶靜止時的動作，希望達成兩種效果：(1) 正確描繪蝴蝶靜止時翅膀是延展而豎起的，不像鳥類翅膀收折；(2) 傳達實驗對象突然飛起來，讓研究者大吃一驚、怒氣沖沖的模樣。文章接下來應該會描述到研究者匆忙網住蝴蝶、用氯仿將蝴蝶麻醉，並仔細實驗觀察。若非作者或實驗人員描述事件如此生動，文章就不會這麼有趣易懂了。
Last Update at 2011-06-30 AM 11:42 | 0 Comments
0627 Brevity: Valuing Each Word－Answer and Explanation 簡潔準則：惜字如金 正確解答
2011-06-28
Answer: We believe the best revision is… “Assembly line manufacturing, a la Henry Ford in Detroit in 1913, produced sociological change by creating merchandise cheaply enough to be afforded by the masses.”
我們相信最佳寫法應為 “Assembly line manufacturing, a la Henry Ford in Detroit in 1913, produced sociological change by creating merchandise cheaply enough to be afforded by the masses.”
This sentence reduces the word count to 23 from 30 just by specifically and succinctly referring to Henry Ford rather than generally describing the circumstances surrounding the auto mogul’s great innovation in manufacturing. To do this, a writer had to know of Ford’s contribution, or at least know enough about it to be able to search out necessary details. A smattering of knowledge can lead to greater knowledge—and to a more informed academic paper—only if it is acted upon.
與其籠統地描述汽車鉅子在製造上的偉大發明，只要具體而簡潔地寫出亨利福特的人名，就可以讓句子從 30 個字減少到 23 個字。為此，作者必須瞭解福特的貢獻，或至少稍有涉獵，才能觀察出必要的細節。具備最起碼的知識有助學習進一步的知識，以及更有見地的寫作學術論文，前提是必須善加利用已具備的知識。
The writer knew enough about Ford’s manufacturing breakthrough to give a reader some general information about the roots of the assembly line. However, rather than refine the information further, boiling it down from “an American automobile manufacturer” to “Henry Ford,” and reducing “in the early 20th century” to “in 1913,” the writer was satisfied with the wordier explanation. Such misjudgment misserves a reader and generally leads to a lower grade on a paper.
作者對福特在製造業突破性的成就略知一二，能大致說明生產線的起源。然而，作者卻安於冗贅的解釋，未進一步化繁為簡，能再精簡表述的包括「美國汽車製造商」可簡化為「亨利福特」、「20 世紀早期」(“in the early 20th century”) 可簡化為「1913 年」(“in 1913”)。作者判斷失據，有負讀者，通常也會讓論文評等大打折扣。
The cause of brevity also was helped in this instance by being able to use a shorthand phrase, “a la,” which means “in the manner of.” Such felicity with substitute expressions—sometimes pulled from another language—can help a writer communicate universally, yet succinctly. Other common expressions of this type include “i.e.,” which means “that is” and “ipso facto,” a Latin expression meaning “by that very fact.” Combined with specific references, such spare phrases can illuminate writing.
使用簡短詞組也能讓例句更為精簡。有時替換其他語言的慣用語詞，例如“a la”，意為「以…方式」，能讓措辭得體，有助溝通的簡明扼要，又無礙訊息傳達。此類表達方式常用的還有拉丁文 “i.e.”，表「意即」；“ipso facto”，表「據此」。善用此類的替換詞組，加上具體說明指涉對象，可讓文章更清晰。
我們相信最佳寫法應為 “Assembly line manufacturing, a la Henry Ford in Detroit in 1913, produced sociological change by creating merchandise cheaply enough to be afforded by the masses.”
This sentence reduces the word count to 23 from 30 just by specifically and succinctly referring to Henry Ford rather than generally describing the circumstances surrounding the auto mogul’s great innovation in manufacturing. To do this, a writer had to know of Ford’s contribution, or at least know enough about it to be able to search out necessary details. A smattering of knowledge can lead to greater knowledge—and to a more informed academic paper—only if it is acted upon.
與其籠統地描述汽車鉅子在製造上的偉大發明，只要具體而簡潔地寫出亨利福特的人名，就可以讓句子從 30 個字減少到 23 個字。為此，作者必須瞭解福特的貢獻，或至少稍有涉獵，才能觀察出必要的細節。具備最起碼的知識有助學習進一步的知識，以及更有見地的寫作學術論文，前提是必須善加利用已具備的知識。
The writer knew enough about Ford’s manufacturing breakthrough to give a reader some general information about the roots of the assembly line. However, rather than refine the information further, boiling it down from “an American automobile manufacturer” to “Henry Ford,” and reducing “in the early 20th century” to “in 1913,” the writer was satisfied with the wordier explanation. Such misjudgment misserves a reader and generally leads to a lower grade on a paper.
作者對福特在製造業突破性的成就略知一二，能大致說明生產線的起源。然而，作者卻安於冗贅的解釋，未進一步化繁為簡，能再精簡表述的包括「美國汽車製造商」可簡化為「亨利福特」、「20 世紀早期」(“in the early 20th century”) 可簡化為「1913 年」(“in 1913”)。作者判斷失據，有負讀者，通常也會讓論文評等大打折扣。
The cause of brevity also was helped in this instance by being able to use a shorthand phrase, “a la,” which means “in the manner of.” Such felicity with substitute expressions—sometimes pulled from another language—can help a writer communicate universally, yet succinctly. Other common expressions of this type include “i.e.,” which means “that is” and “ipso facto,” a Latin expression meaning “by that very fact.” Combined with specific references, such spare phrases can illuminate writing.
使用簡短詞組也能讓例句更為精簡。有時替換其他語言的慣用語詞，例如“a la”，意為「以…方式」，能讓措辭得體，有助溝通的簡明扼要，又無礙訊息傳達。此類表達方式常用的還有拉丁文 “i.e.”，表「意即」；“ipso facto”，表「據此」。善用此類的替換詞組，加上具體說明指涉對象，可讓文章更清晰。
Last Update at 2011-06-28 PM 3:35 | 0 Comments
0627 Brevity: Valuing Each Word－Win Your NTD200 7-11/Starbucks Prize! 簡潔準則：惜字如金 有機會獲得價值200元統一超商/星巴克咖啡禮券!
2011-06-27
The best writing doesn’t waste words. It employs words efficiently. The first TPS Fan to complete the sentence below as we believe it should be 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. Each brevity rule is contained in 10 Ways to Shorten & Strengthen Your Academic Paper and will be posted on the TPS Fan page as introduced.
最佳的寫作，必須有效選用字句、惜字如金。TPS推出新專欄，請你寫出簡潔、流暢的詞彙/句子。題目刊登於下方，經TPS編輯教授評選為第1位最適解答的粉絲，可獲得統一超商/星巴克咖啡NTD200元的購物禮券；增設特別獎1名，獎項給予提出符合句意又別具創意之解答的粉絲。解答與獲獎的粉絲姓名，將於明天公佈於本TPS專頁。每一項簡潔準則，皆收錄於TPS新推出之「十大簡潔英文準則」，將定期刊登本專欄，敬請密切鎖定、先睹為快。
Rule # 4: Use specific references… An academic writer can tighten his paper, lower word count, and speed along a reader by using specific terminology and references rather than general explanations. The latter approach suggests inadequate or lazy research. In the sentence below, the writer did not write with specificity. How can the sentence best be written shorter and stronger while retaining its meaning?
十大簡潔英文準則四：具體說明指涉對象
寫作學術文章若能避免空泛的解釋，使用專門用語並具體說明指涉對象，就能使文章更精煉、減少字數，使閱讀更流暢。籠統的解釋表示作者可能研究不當或過於馬虎。以下例句寫作有欠具體，要如何修改才能有效地縮短句子，加強語氣，並且維持原本句意呢？
題目Contest Sentence:
Assembly line manufacturing, a concept introduced by an American automobile manufacturer in the early 20th century, produced sociological change by creating merchandise cheaply enough to be afforded by the masses.”
最佳的寫作，必須有效選用字句、惜字如金。TPS推出新專欄，請你寫出簡潔、流暢的詞彙/句子。題目刊登於下方，經TPS編輯教授評選為第1位最適解答的粉絲，可獲得統一超商/星巴克咖啡NTD200元的購物禮券；增設特別獎1名，獎項給予提出符合句意又別具創意之解答的粉絲。解答與獲獎的粉絲姓名，將於明天公佈於本TPS專頁。每一項簡潔準則，皆收錄於TPS新推出之「十大簡潔英文準則」，將定期刊登本專欄，敬請密切鎖定、先睹為快。
Rule # 4: Use specific references… An academic writer can tighten his paper, lower word count, and speed along a reader by using specific terminology and references rather than general explanations. The latter approach suggests inadequate or lazy research. In the sentence below, the writer did not write with specificity. How can the sentence best be written shorter and stronger while retaining its meaning?
十大簡潔英文準則四：具體說明指涉對象
寫作學術文章若能避免空泛的解釋，使用專門用語並具體說明指涉對象，就能使文章更精煉、減少字數，使閱讀更流暢。籠統的解釋表示作者可能研究不當或過於馬虎。以下例句寫作有欠具體，要如何修改才能有效地縮短句子，加強語氣，並且維持原本句意呢？
題目Contest Sentence:
Assembly line manufacturing, a concept introduced by an American automobile manufacturer in the early 20th century, produced sociological change by creating merchandise cheaply enough to be afforded by the masses.”
Last Update at 2011-06-27 AM 11:01 | 0 Comments
This is not academic writing 學術文章不是這麼寫的
2011-06-23
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 Korea temple is structured in perfect balance, a harmony of straight lines, curved surfaces, and squared spaces. The figures carved against the wall are all exquisitely carved. The idea for the grotto came from cave temples in China. However, those statues in China were cut into the surface of a rock cliff; the Korea figurines stand in a manmade enclosure, which consists of a round interior room with a domed ceiling and a rectangular entranceway chamber.”
This paragraph has much to recommend it, including directness, effective description and correct punctuation. However, it begins to fall apart with the second word—Korea. Because it is used to modify the next word, “temple,” the word should be “Korean.” To say the temple figures were carved “against” the wall is confusing. More accurately, they were carved on or in the wall, depending upon whether they were bas-relief or nearly fully formed. Calling the carvings both “figures” and, later, “figurines” is sloppy; they are not the same. Finally, the two ending words should have been one, because “entranceway” implies foyer, or hall, or “chamber.” Can you find other weaknesses in the writing?
本文有許多可取之處，例如行文直截了當、描述得當，標點符號正確。然而，文章從第二個字 “Korea” 就洩了氣；該字用來修飾下一個字 “temple”，所以應該用 “Korean” 才對。形容廟裡的雕像「對著牆雕」(carved “against” the wall) 令人難以理解，若雕像為浮雕，正確說法應為「雕在牆面」(carved “on” the wall)，若為立體雕塑，則應用「雕在牆上」(carved “in” the wall)。此外，“figures” 和 “figurines” 兩字意思不同，混用兩字稱呼雕像也不甚理想。最後，結尾的 “entranceway” 和 “chamber” 兩字擇一即可，因為 “entranceway” 本身就有「前廳」、「大廳」或「廳室」(chamber) 的意思。你還能看出這篇文章的其他缺點嗎？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The Korean temple is structured in perfect balance, a harmony of straight lines, curved surfaces, and squared spaces. The figures carved on the wall are all exquisitely cut. The grotto was modeled on cave temples in China. However, the representational figures in China were cut into the surface of a rock cliff; the Korean figures stand in a fabricated enclosure, which consists of a round inner chamber with a domed ceiling and a rectangular entranceway.”
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 Korea temple is structured in perfect balance, a harmony of straight lines, curved surfaces, and squared spaces. The figures carved against the wall are all exquisitely carved. The idea for the grotto came from cave temples in China. However, those statues in China were cut into the surface of a rock cliff; the Korea figurines stand in a manmade enclosure, which consists of a round interior room with a domed ceiling and a rectangular entranceway chamber.”
This paragraph has much to recommend it, including directness, effective description and correct punctuation. However, it begins to fall apart with the second word—Korea. Because it is used to modify the next word, “temple,” the word should be “Korean.” To say the temple figures were carved “against” the wall is confusing. More accurately, they were carved on or in the wall, depending upon whether they were bas-relief or nearly fully formed. Calling the carvings both “figures” and, later, “figurines” is sloppy; they are not the same. Finally, the two ending words should have been one, because “entranceway” implies foyer, or hall, or “chamber.” Can you find other weaknesses in the writing?
本文有許多可取之處，例如行文直截了當、描述得當，標點符號正確。然而，文章從第二個字 “Korea” 就洩了氣；該字用來修飾下一個字 “temple”，所以應該用 “Korean” 才對。形容廟裡的雕像「對著牆雕」(carved “against” the wall) 令人難以理解，若雕像為浮雕，正確說法應為「雕在牆面」(carved “on” the wall)，若為立體雕塑，則應用「雕在牆上」(carved “in” the wall)。此外，“figures” 和 “figurines” 兩字意思不同，混用兩字稱呼雕像也不甚理想。最後，結尾的 “entranceway” 和 “chamber” 兩字擇一即可，因為 “entranceway” 本身就有「前廳」、「大廳」或「廳室」(chamber) 的意思。你還能看出這篇文章的其他缺點嗎？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The Korean temple is structured in perfect balance, a harmony of straight lines, curved surfaces, and squared spaces. The figures carved on the wall are all exquisitely cut. The grotto was modeled on cave temples in China. However, the representational figures in China were cut into the surface of a rock cliff; the Korean figures stand in a fabricated enclosure, which consists of a round inner chamber with a domed ceiling and a rectangular entranceway.”
Last Update at 2011-06-23 AM 10:13 | 0 Comments
0621 TPS Spot the Error Contest－Answer and Explanation 你是挑錯的高手嗎? 正確解答
2011-06-21
Answer: “admissions” should be “emissions.”
“While nuclear energy is free of harmful emissions, the energy-generation process also produces radioactive waste, which remains problematic.”
Error: The writer almost chooses a correct word in “admissions.” However, the needed word was “emissions.” The words are similar in that they describe movement from one place to another. They are different in that one (admission) generally describes inward movement and the other (emission) describes outward movement. Admission can be likened to “enter” and emission to “exit.” So the writer inadvertently used a word that meant the opposite of what was intended. The sentence specifically alludes to conventional power plant side-products that pollute when they are emitted, or thrown out, through the plant’s smokestacks.
作者的用字 “admissions” 其實很接近了，不過正確的字應該是 “emissions”。這兩個字很像，都描述物體從甲地移至乙地，但是 admission 一般指移向內部，emission 則指移向外部，admission 和進入 (enter) 有關，emission 和離開 (exit) 有關。作者不小心選錯字，表達的意思與原意的方向相反，本句特別指稱傳統發電廠經由煙囪排放出副產物，造成汙染。
“While nuclear energy is free of harmful emissions, the energy-generation process also produces radioactive waste, which remains problematic.”
Error: The writer almost chooses a correct word in “admissions.” However, the needed word was “emissions.” The words are similar in that they describe movement from one place to another. They are different in that one (admission) generally describes inward movement and the other (emission) describes outward movement. Admission can be likened to “enter” and emission to “exit.” So the writer inadvertently used a word that meant the opposite of what was intended. The sentence specifically alludes to conventional power plant side-products that pollute when they are emitted, or thrown out, through the plant’s smokestacks.
作者的用字 “admissions” 其實很接近了，不過正確的字應該是 “emissions”。這兩個字很像，都描述物體從甲地移至乙地，但是 admission 一般指移向內部，emission 則指移向外部，admission 和進入 (enter) 有關，emission 和離開 (exit) 有關。作者不小心選錯字，表達的意思與原意的方向相反，本句特別指稱傳統發電廠經由煙囪排放出副產物，造成汙染。
Last Update at 2011-06-21 PM 3:50 | 0 Comments
0620 TPS Spot the Error Contest－Win Your NTD200 7-11/Starbucks Prize! 你是挑錯的高手嗎? 有機會獲得200元統一超商/星巴克咖啡禮券!
2011-06-20
下列的句子中，包含了一個錯誤，可能是文法、拼法或是標點符號的錯誤。我們將提供統一超商/星巴克咖啡NTD200元的購物禮券，給予今天前三名挑出正確錯誤、寫出正確答案的粉絲。正確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!
The sentence below contains 1 grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation error. The first three (3) TPS Fans to respond with the corrected sentence will win a NTD200 7-11/Starbucks Gift Certificate. The corrected sentence and the names of the winners will be published tomorrow on this TPS Fans page. Please post your answers below. Good luck!
題目Contest Sentence:
“While nuclear energy is free of harmful admissions, the energy-generation process also produces radioactive waste, which remains problematic.”
The sentence below contains 1 grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation error. The first three (3) TPS Fans to respond with the corrected sentence will win a NTD200 7-11/Starbucks Gift Certificate. The corrected sentence and the names of the winners will be published tomorrow on this TPS Fans page. Please post your answers below. Good luck!
題目Contest Sentence:
“While nuclear energy is free of harmful admissions, the energy-generation process also produces radioactive waste, which remains problematic.”
Last Update at 2011-06-20 AM 10:33 | 0 Comments
What does that mean? 你真的瞭解這個慣用語嗎?
2011-06-16
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.
“The laboratory team approached the project as if it were an onion, systematically exploring its multiple facets till their eyes were red with exhaustion.”
實驗室研究團隊處理問題就像是處理洋蔥，系統性地探討各個層面，直到眼睛疲憊發紅。
Onions are vegetables that are recognizably layered. Each layer lends itself to peeling away to expose another layer underneath. Because the onion cells, when cut, produce a lighter-than-air gas, the peeling off of the layers irritates the eyes. The irritation brings tears, which are produced to wash away the irritation. These two characteristics of most onions—multi-layered composition and irritation of the eyes of anyone handling them—are universally recognized.
洋蔥這種蔬菜最明顯的特質，就是具有許多層次，每撥開一層，就會看到下面一層。此外，切開洋蔥會產生一種比空氣輕的氣體，所以剝洋蔥會讓眼睛不舒服，產生淚液，以洗掉刺激物。一般人都很清楚洋蔥這兩種特質，也就是多層次的結構以及刺激眼睛的特性。
In saying scientists approached a project “as if it were an onion,” the writer used a simile to compare the methodical deconstruction of a complex object or compound to the peeling of the vegetable. Layer by layer, the scientists sorted and scrutinized the object or compound and recorded their findings. That they continued their quest till their “eyes were red” is an ancillary allusion to the onion and its capacity to stimulate tear glands in eyes. The laboratory experiment may not actually produce an irritating gas, but hours of squinting through microscopes can produce something similar, eyestrain.
用處理洋蔥(as if it were an onion)比喻處理問題，就是將處理複雜物質及化合物時抽絲剝繭的方法，用剝洋蔥來相比擬，如同科學家對事件的逐層處理、仔細檢視物質與化合物，並記錄研究發現。這裡提及科學家持續探索，直至「眼睛發紅」，同樣指涉洋蔥刺激淚腺的特點。研究室所進行的實驗可能未必真的產生刺激氣體，但對著顯微鏡連續看好幾小時的確會造成類似的結果，使眼睛疲勞。
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.
“The laboratory team approached the project as if it were an onion, systematically exploring its multiple facets till their eyes were red with exhaustion.”
實驗室研究團隊處理問題就像是處理洋蔥，系統性地探討各個層面，直到眼睛疲憊發紅。
Onions are vegetables that are recognizably layered. Each layer lends itself to peeling away to expose another layer underneath. Because the onion cells, when cut, produce a lighter-than-air gas, the peeling off of the layers irritates the eyes. The irritation brings tears, which are produced to wash away the irritation. These two characteristics of most onions—multi-layered composition and irritation of the eyes of anyone handling them—are universally recognized.
洋蔥這種蔬菜最明顯的特質，就是具有許多層次，每撥開一層，就會看到下面一層。此外，切開洋蔥會產生一種比空氣輕的氣體，所以剝洋蔥會讓眼睛不舒服，產生淚液，以洗掉刺激物。一般人都很清楚洋蔥這兩種特質，也就是多層次的結構以及刺激眼睛的特性。
In saying scientists approached a project “as if it were an onion,” the writer used a simile to compare the methodical deconstruction of a complex object or compound to the peeling of the vegetable. Layer by layer, the scientists sorted and scrutinized the object or compound and recorded their findings. That they continued their quest till their “eyes were red” is an ancillary allusion to the onion and its capacity to stimulate tear glands in eyes. The laboratory experiment may not actually produce an irritating gas, but hours of squinting through microscopes can produce something similar, eyestrain.
用處理洋蔥(as if it were an onion)比喻處理問題，就是將處理複雜物質及化合物時抽絲剝繭的方法，用剝洋蔥來相比擬，如同科學家對事件的逐層處理、仔細檢視物質與化合物，並記錄研究發現。這裡提及科學家持續探索，直至「眼睛發紅」，同樣指涉洋蔥刺激淚腺的特點。研究室所進行的實驗可能未必真的產生刺激氣體，但對著顯微鏡連續看好幾小時的確會造成類似的結果，使眼睛疲勞。
Last Update at 2011-06-16 PM 2:51 | 0 Comments
0613 Brevity: Valuing Each Word－Answer and Explanation 簡潔準則：惜字如金 正確解答
2011-06-14
Answer: We believe the best revision is… “Fifty years ago, computers were large compared to today’s models, unreliable, difficult to operate, and considered a technology without a future.”
我們相信最佳寫法應為 “Fifty years ago, computers were large compared to today’s models, unreliable, difficult to operate, and considered a technology without a future.”
This sentence reduces the word count to 21 from 28, mostly by eliminating weasel words. What is weasel wording? It is phraseology that hedges rather than declares. In this case, the writer hedged by writing earlier computers were “quite large,” rather than flat-out saying they were large, especially when placed side by side with today’s hand-held units. Other weasel words are “pretty” and “very” and “almost.” While such modifiers have their legitimate uses, they are only fillers in this sentence.
剔除遁辭後，句子從28個字變成21個字。什麼是遁辭？使用遁辭就是用字閃爍其詞，不直接說明。例句裡，作者取巧地說，和今天的手提電腦相比，早期的電腦「相當大」(“quite large”) ，而非直截了當地說電腦很大。其他遁辭還有 “pretty”、“very” 與 “almost”。這些修飾語有其適切的用法，但在本例中只是濫竽充數。
The introductory phrase, “About a half century ago,” is unnecessarily vague. A quick check of computer history shows that it would have been accurate to say “Fifty years ago…,” or for that matter 55 years ago. Instead, the lazy writer opted to use tired and imprecise “about” phrasing. In another place, the writer used two passive words—“by comparison”—instead of “compared,” a more forceful expression. Not only does the passive construction slow down a reader, it lengthens the sentence without vivifying it.
開頭句 “About a half century ago” 很模糊，可以更精準的表達，稍微查證一下電腦的歷史，就知道用 50 年前 (“Fifty years ago…,”) 才正確，更精確點，應該說 55 年前。但是作者卻偷懶，用老套含糊的 “about” 表達；此外，作者還用了被動說法 “by comparison”，而非更有力的 “compared”。被動結構不僅讓人讀得慢，也拉長句子，難以讓句子更生動。
Writers make a mistake when they believe readers of academic papers—usually professors—are OK with trudging to a conclusion, rather than being propelled to the end by active, direct word choices. Writers also err in believing that dropping in modifiers and otherwise fudging instead of writing with exactness goes unnoticed by these same professors. This is a helpful rule of thumb for a writer of a paper: The heavier and more insipid the subject, the more direct and animated the writing must be. Content is gold, but gold is heavy; lift it with exact, robust language.
作者以為學術論文的讀者－通常是教授－願意自己費盡心力找出結論，而不需透過主動、直接的用字帶領，一路導向結論；也以為用字不精確、動不動就使用修飾語或是含糊其詞，能逃過教授的法眼。這些想法都錯了。寫作論文請把握一項大原則：主題愈枯燥乏味，用字就要愈直接生動。內容是金，金子重量可不輕，謹記用字要精確堅定，才能讓讀者立即捕捉你的重點。
我們相信最佳寫法應為 “Fifty years ago, computers were large compared to today’s models, unreliable, difficult to operate, and considered a technology without a future.”
This sentence reduces the word count to 21 from 28, mostly by eliminating weasel words. What is weasel wording? It is phraseology that hedges rather than declares. In this case, the writer hedged by writing earlier computers were “quite large,” rather than flat-out saying they were large, especially when placed side by side with today’s hand-held units. Other weasel words are “pretty” and “very” and “almost.” While such modifiers have their legitimate uses, they are only fillers in this sentence.
剔除遁辭後，句子從28個字變成21個字。什麼是遁辭？使用遁辭就是用字閃爍其詞，不直接說明。例句裡，作者取巧地說，和今天的手提電腦相比，早期的電腦「相當大」(“quite large”) ，而非直截了當地說電腦很大。其他遁辭還有 “pretty”、“very” 與 “almost”。這些修飾語有其適切的用法，但在本例中只是濫竽充數。
The introductory phrase, “About a half century ago,” is unnecessarily vague. A quick check of computer history shows that it would have been accurate to say “Fifty years ago…,” or for that matter 55 years ago. Instead, the lazy writer opted to use tired and imprecise “about” phrasing. In another place, the writer used two passive words—“by comparison”—instead of “compared,” a more forceful expression. Not only does the passive construction slow down a reader, it lengthens the sentence without vivifying it.
開頭句 “About a half century ago” 很模糊，可以更精準的表達，稍微查證一下電腦的歷史，就知道用 50 年前 (“Fifty years ago…,”) 才正確，更精確點，應該說 55 年前。但是作者卻偷懶，用老套含糊的 “about” 表達；此外，作者還用了被動說法 “by comparison”，而非更有力的 “compared”。被動結構不僅讓人讀得慢，也拉長句子，難以讓句子更生動。
Writers make a mistake when they believe readers of academic papers—usually professors—are OK with trudging to a conclusion, rather than being propelled to the end by active, direct word choices. Writers also err in believing that dropping in modifiers and otherwise fudging instead of writing with exactness goes unnoticed by these same professors. This is a helpful rule of thumb for a writer of a paper: The heavier and more insipid the subject, the more direct and animated the writing must be. Content is gold, but gold is heavy; lift it with exact, robust language.
作者以為學術論文的讀者－通常是教授－願意自己費盡心力找出結論，而不需透過主動、直接的用字帶領，一路導向結論；也以為用字不精確、動不動就使用修飾語或是含糊其詞，能逃過教授的法眼。這些想法都錯了。寫作論文請把握一項大原則：主題愈枯燥乏味，用字就要愈直接生動。內容是金，金子重量可不輕，謹記用字要精確堅定，才能讓讀者立即捕捉你的重點。
Last Update at 2011-06-14 PM 12:36 | 0 Comments
0613 Brevity: Valuing Each Word－Win Your NTD200 7-11/Starbucks Prize! 簡潔準則：惜字如金 有機會獲得價值200元統一超商/星巴克咖啡禮券!
2011-06-13The best writing doesn’t waste words. It employs words efficiently. The first TPS Fan to complete the sentence below as we believe it should be 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. Each brevity rule is contained in 10 Ways to Shorten & Strengthen Your Academic Paper and will be posted on the TPS Fan page as introduced.
最佳的寫作，必須有效選用字句、惜字如金。TPS推出新專欄，請你寫出簡潔、流暢的詞彙/句子。題目刊登於下方，經TPS編輯教授評選為第1位最適解答的粉絲，可獲得統一超商/星巴克咖啡NTD200元的購物禮券；增設特別獎1名，獎項給予提出符合句意又別具創意之解答的粉絲。解答與獲獎的粉絲姓名，將於明天公佈於本TPS專頁。每一項簡潔準則，皆收錄於TPS新推出之「十大簡潔英文準則」，將定期刊登本專欄，敬請密切鎖定、先睹為快。
Rule # 3: Don’t write tentatively… If a trained academic writer knows his subject, his writing will reflect it. Tentative writing indicates thinking that is not fully developed, and generally results in wordiness. In the sentence below, the writer did not write assuredly. How can the sentence best be written shorter and stronger while retaining its meaning?
十大簡潔英文準則三：想清楚再下筆
訓練有素的學術作者會在作品中反映出對主題的認識。沒想清楚就動筆，表示想法尚未思考周延，而且文句通常較冗贅。以下這句話作者寫起來並沒有把握，要如何修改才能有效地縮短句子，加強語氣，並且維持原本句意呢？
題目 Contest Sentence:
“About a half century ago, computers were quite large by comparison to today’s computers, pretty unreliable, very difficult to operate, and almost considered a technology without a future.”
Last Update at 2011-06-13 AM 11:03 | 0 Comments
This is not academic writing 學術文章不是這麼寫的
2011-06-09
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
“When King Ramses II died in about 1213 BC, tumult spread across the Mediterranean region. Some seafaring warriors plotted with Egyptian rivals and attacked Egypt to test the power of Ramses’ successor, King Merneptah. The new king was the winner. What was behind the attack? It was because of hungry people. Seizing the Egyptian grain-producing area seems to have been the reason for it; this is more evidence that, yes, war can be motivated by the pure need for conquest, but it also can be about meeting basic needs.”
The paragraph above contains both glaring and subtle flaws. An example: “…about 1213 BC” is a classic misuse of the word “about.” If the battle in question can be linked to a particular year in ancient history (1213 BC), there is no “about” about it. Also, “The new king was the winner” is an imprecise summation. Better wording is, “The new king’s forces prevailed”—which also gets away from the notion that wars have winners. To say the war was “because of hungry people” is sloppy expression. Soldiers did the fighting, after all, and they often were among the best fed citizens. A better formulation is to answer the rhetorical question in a single word—“Hunger.” And the “it” in the sentence that ends … “the reason for it” has no certain antecedent. In short, the paragraph has problems. See the improved version below.
這篇文章的錯誤有些很明顯，有些則不易察覺。例如：“…about 1213 BC” 這句就犯了 about 用法的典型錯誤。如果所提的戰爭發生在過去明確的年份 (1213 BC)，就不應該用 about。此外，“The new king was the winner” 也不精確，較佳的說法是 “The new king’s forces prevailed”，這樣的說法也避免了戰爭有無贏家的問題。提到戰爭是 “because of hungry people” 同樣有欠周延，畢竟打仗的是士兵，通常不會讓士兵餓肚子，所以回答該問句的理想答案可用一字以蔽之：“Hunger”。還有，以 “…the reason for it” 結尾，但it並沒有明確的先行詞。簡言之，這段文章有許多問題。以下是修改後的文章：
Acceptable 認可的文章
“When King Ramses II died in 1213 BC, tumult spread across the Mediterranean region. Soon, some seafaring warriors allied themselves with Egyptian rivals and attacked Egypt to test the mettle of Ramses’ successor, King Merneptah. The new king’s forces prevailed. What was behind the attack? Hunger. Seizing the Egyptian breadbasket seems to have been the strategic goal, which is additional evidence that war is as often about meeting basic needs as it is about pure conquest.”
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
“When King Ramses II died in about 1213 BC, tumult spread across the Mediterranean region. Some seafaring warriors plotted with Egyptian rivals and attacked Egypt to test the power of Ramses’ successor, King Merneptah. The new king was the winner. What was behind the attack? It was because of hungry people. Seizing the Egyptian grain-producing area seems to have been the reason for it; this is more evidence that, yes, war can be motivated by the pure need for conquest, but it also can be about meeting basic needs.”
The paragraph above contains both glaring and subtle flaws. An example: “…about 1213 BC” is a classic misuse of the word “about.” If the battle in question can be linked to a particular year in ancient history (1213 BC), there is no “about” about it. Also, “The new king was the winner” is an imprecise summation. Better wording is, “The new king’s forces prevailed”—which also gets away from the notion that wars have winners. To say the war was “because of hungry people” is sloppy expression. Soldiers did the fighting, after all, and they often were among the best fed citizens. A better formulation is to answer the rhetorical question in a single word—“Hunger.” And the “it” in the sentence that ends … “the reason for it” has no certain antecedent. In short, the paragraph has problems. See the improved version below.
這篇文章的錯誤有些很明顯，有些則不易察覺。例如：“…about 1213 BC” 這句就犯了 about 用法的典型錯誤。如果所提的戰爭發生在過去明確的年份 (1213 BC)，就不應該用 about。此外，“The new king was the winner” 也不精確，較佳的說法是 “The new king’s forces prevailed”，這樣的說法也避免了戰爭有無贏家的問題。提到戰爭是 “because of hungry people” 同樣有欠周延，畢竟打仗的是士兵，通常不會讓士兵餓肚子，所以回答該問句的理想答案可用一字以蔽之：“Hunger”。還有，以 “…the reason for it” 結尾，但it並沒有明確的先行詞。簡言之，這段文章有許多問題。以下是修改後的文章：
Acceptable 認可的文章
“When King Ramses II died in 1213 BC, tumult spread across the Mediterranean region. Soon, some seafaring warriors allied themselves with Egyptian rivals and attacked Egypt to test the mettle of Ramses’ successor, King Merneptah. The new king’s forces prevailed. What was behind the attack? Hunger. Seizing the Egyptian breadbasket seems to have been the strategic goal, which is additional evidence that war is as often about meeting basic needs as it is about pure conquest.”
Last Update at 2011-06-09 PM 6:23 | 0 Comments
最新回應