搵人分析下一句英文嘅結構
<P>Unlike net worth - the difference between your assets and liabilities, which is often filled with a person's expensive junk and opinions of what things are worth - this definition creates the possibility for developing a truly accurate measurement. </P><P>我理解係分號入面嘅部分都係說明net worth嘅，而成句係為說明“this definition unlike net worth”，請英文高手賜教。</P> <P>路過睇吓,我覺得從unlike net worth後邊開始到最尾都唔係說明net worht嘅定義.咁長一段都係說明the difference呢個嘅定義,佢同net worth并列關係,而後邊一大堆說明都係講緊the difference,好似冇提到net worth喎.</P>
<P>小弟獻醜喇!!</P> rich dad poor dad ? good book
[此帖子已經被作者於2007-7-6 18:30:03編輯過]
先唔好睇分號入面嘅句子，係一個完整句：Unlike net worth this definition creates the possibility for developing a truly accurate measurement.係咪易明好多？而the difference between your assets and liabilities, which is often filled with a person's expensive junk and opinions of what things are worth係插入語，可以講係題外話，順帶提吓乜嘢係net worth，裏邊夾雜一個非限制性定語從句which is often filled with a person's expensive junk and opinions of what things are worth嚟修飾liablities。噉成個句子就明白晒啦，處理類似結構嘅句子用呢個方法好殺食。 <DIV class=quote><B>以下是引用<I>余OK</I>在2007-7-6 19:57:08的發言：</B><BR> 先唔好睇分號入面嘅句子，係一個完整句：Unlike net worth this definition creates the possibility for developing a truly accurate measurement.係咪易明好多？而the difference between your assets and liabilities, which is often filled with a person's expensive junk and opinions of what things are worth係插入語，可以講係題外話，順帶提吓乜嘢係net worth，裏邊夾雜一個非限制性定語從句which is often filled with a person's expensive junk and opinions of what things are worth嚟修飾liablities。噉成個句子就明白晒啦，處理類似結構嘅句子用呢個方法好殺食。</DIV>
<P></P>講得冇錯,但係如果從句係修飾liabilities嘅話,喺文法上就好似失咗平衡喎,因為assets同liabilities喺并列平衡關係,如果從句淨係修飾liabilities而唔修飾assets嘅話,句子會唔會好似顯得腳重頭輕啊??仲有從語義同埋邏輯上睇,債務好似冇咩理由係充滿大話同價值觀咖喎,但係the difference就唔同喇,喺經濟學角度嚟睇,剩餘價值或者差額可以充滿呢兩樣嘢.因為資本家為追求佢哋完全做得出嚟!!所以覺得從句好似係修飾the difference,如果講錯請大家指出啊!! <DIV class=quote><B>以下是引用<I>廣州人喺圖盧茲</I>在2007-7-7 7:24:13的發言：</B><BR><BR>
<P></P>講得冇錯,但係如果從句係修飾liabilities嘅話,喺文法上就好似失咗平衡喎,因為assets同liabilities喺并列平衡關係,如果從句淨係修飾liabilities而唔修飾assets嘅話,句子會唔會好似顯得腳重頭輕啊??仲有從語義同埋邏輯上睇,債務好似冇咩理由係充滿大話同價值觀咖喎,但係the difference就唔同喇,喺經濟學角度嚟睇,剩餘價值或者差額可以充滿呢兩樣嘢.因為資本家為追求佢哋完全做得出嚟!!所以覺得從句好似係修飾the difference,如果講錯請大家指出啊!!</DIV>
<P> 再深入分析，似有呢個可能，先前認為非限制性定語從句必定緊跟先行詞，其實再睇返個句子，先行詞我都重未sure到，事關經濟學知識早已畀返老師七七八八嘞，如果有紮實經濟學知識我相信好快就判斷到邊個先至眞係先行詞，從而又解決咗一個語法問題：先行詞唔一定係從句之前嗰個詞。</P> which引出嘅從句應該係修飾difference嘅，古德明教落，從句前有逗號可以則先行詞唔一定要係從句前嗰個詞。其實我唔理解呢句話主要都係對啲經濟學名詞識得少，詞彙識得少肯定嚴重影響閱讀。 <DIV class=quote><B>以下是引用<I>余OK</I>在2007-7-7 7:33:59的發言：</B><BR><BR>
<P> 再深入分析，似有呢個可能，先前認為非限制性定語從句必定緊跟先行詞，其實再睇返個句子，先行詞我都重未sure到，事關經濟學知識早已畀返老師七七八八嘞，如果有紮實經濟學知識我相信好快就判斷到邊個先至眞係先行詞，從而又解決咗一個語法問題：先行詞唔一定係從句之前嗰個詞。</P></DIV>
<P>
<DIV class=quote><B>以下是引用<I>highyun</I>在2007-7-7 18:28:41的發言：</B><BR>which引出嘅從句應該係修飾difference嘅，古德明教落，從句前有逗號可以則先行詞唔一定要係從句前嗰個詞。其實我唔理解呢句話主要都係對啲經濟學名詞識得少，詞彙識得少肯定嚴重影響閱讀。</DIV>Sometimes,therein lies the rub. <P>從句修飾difference，插入語講嘅，系作者對net worth嘅見解。</P>
<P>唔似得淨值咁，例如資産与負債嘅差距，往往充滿個人昂貴而且又可有可無嘅嘢，同埋唔同嘅價值觀-但呢個定義可以發展出確切嘅測算方法。</P>
<P>小弟先拋嚿磚頭，各位有玉即管畀我……</P> <P>會計學基礎最基本嘅公式係： assets - liabilities = Owners' Equity 即“資產—負債=所有者權益（資產淨值 net worth）”</P>
<P>so, “net worth”同“the difference between your assets and liabilities”係同位語……</P>
[ 本帖最後由 茗荷介 於 2007-9-10 13:29 編輯 ]
頁:
[1]