2021.07.17 聯合報A11版「紐約時報賞析」改編錯誤

2021.07.17 聯合報A11版「紐約時報賞析」（讀紐時學英文）：

But the only television station that consistently supports him, has less than 1% of the television audience on most days - that it does not even figure in ratings charts.

https://i.imgur.com/egTYHzx.jpg

網友GoesStation

Add "so low a share" before that.

It's a misprint. The publisher left out some words. The sentence works if you put them back.

網友teechar

Indeed. Something like this is needed. Otherwise, to me, the sentence is ungrammatical. Also, the comma after "him" is wrong.

原文未刪節版

But the only television station that consistently supports him, a bombastic and partly Hungarian-funded outfit called Nova24TV, has so few viewers — less than one percent of the television audience on most days — that it does not even figure in ratings charts.

網友GoesStation

That's fine.

結論：聯合報節錄的時候改編錯誤。


該討論串

"I will be ten minutes late."的文法

英語顧問公司說此句是「late是副詞，放在後面修飾整個句子」，我不同意這樣的說法。

如果查牛津、朗文、麥克米倫的網頁會發現，此類句子的late都是給「形容詞」的詞性，而我也認為這個late應該是形容詞而非副詞。理由如下：

副詞是可有可無的詞類，拿掉並不影響句子的整體架構，例如：

Actually, it would be much more sensible to do it later.
事實上，以後再辦這件事可能要明智得多。（牛津：Actually）

上句的「actually」就是修飾整句的副詞，如果拿掉了，變成：

It would be much more sensible to do it later.

句子架構依然完整。而我們討論的這一句：

I will be ten minutes late.

如果把late拿掉了，剩下「I will be ten minutes.」（？），就變得不知所云。因此這個late不可能是「修飾整句的副詞」。

我認為這句的架構是SVC：

I (S) will be (V) ten minutes late (C).

而"ten minutes"當副詞用，修飾形容詞late。但問題來了，副詞怎麼會有複數？我目前偏向歸類為「時間副詞」。總之，我會把" ten minutes "看成是名詞片語當副詞用，修飾late（形容詞）。 

《英文文法有道理》的put out及其回應

一、

對於讀者的提問，劉老師說：「What I wanted to emphasize in the book is that the two elements go together to form ONE verbal concept. Their meaning is clear when they go together. If you say 'I put the fire out', it may be mistaken as 'put something out' (so that it can be seen).」（見紅框處）

但問題來了，劉老師回應的時候是說「 If you say 'I put the fire out', it may be mistaken as 'put something out'」，然而書上可不是這麼寫喔：

照書上的寫法，明顯是認定「put out」當「撲滅」時不可分開，否則就會變成「把火拿出來」。

因此我認為，這邊的內容確實是有問題，劉老師大可坦承筆誤。

建議在旁邊加註：「雖然put out可分開，但分開的寫法解讀時會有歧異，還是不分開，寫『put out the fire』為佳」。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

二、

劉老師說「being taught」是「which has been taught」的減化，然而國外網友有不同的看法（該網友是英國人，母語為英語，也是英文老師）：

原文出處（討論串第十八篇）

我認同那位網友的看法。

-------

書中原文：

After the discussion, we came to the conclusion that teachers normally equip more or less the same depth of knowledge on the subject being taught, but what makes them

drastically different from one another are the different ways they delivered the same

knowledge and how they care about the learning of their students.

--------

補充：

為什麼會問這個問題呢？因為我認為就意思來說，"being taught"理解成「現在進行式+被動語態」比較合適，或者直接寫"taught"，不要進行式也可以，相較來說，我想不出用現在完成式的理由，而且如果是「which has been taught」，應該減化成「having been taught」比較合理吧。