tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post7791283554973894031..comments2024-03-22T08:04:05.869-07:00Comments on 魚之樂: 雙重否定Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-52770173333059994112012-06-20T07:58:46.776-07:002012-06-20T07:58:46.776-07:00嗯﹐雙重否定和否定之否定﹐是兩回事
在辯証法中﹐否定之否定規律(Law of negation o...嗯﹐雙重否定和否定之否定﹐是兩回事<br /><br />在辯証法中﹐否定之否定規律(Law of negation of the negation)又稱肯定否定規律﹐是指事物經過不斷自我否定﹐曲折地螺旋式上昇﹑發展﹐從而得到提升。<br />而否定之否定這詞本身﹐是指一個否定的說法被否定。<br /><br />舉例﹕過去拉馬克曾發表用進廢退說來否定創造論﹐現在這學說已被否定。<br /><br />在這句中﹐只是否定了一個用來否定創造論的說法﹐既不代表創造論因而被肯定﹑也不代表創造論不能被否定﹐或最終沒被否定。<br /><br />至於雙重否定﹐英文我不太懂﹐但中文則很簡單﹐便是用兩個否定語來達至一個肯定。例如﹕不能不說﹑不可不看﹑非走不可。<br /><br />至於CY這句說話﹐既不是雙重否定句﹐更不是否定之否定﹐而是一句普通的否定句。<br />而他否認的﹐不是自己不感動﹐而是否認他說過自己不感動。文少http://jonathan_sky.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-50316556706837442852012-06-18T22:59:18.735-07:002012-06-18T22:59:18.735-07:00做粉絲要刷鞋的話,當學不強難立先生:
「《哲道行者》我已經看過了很多遍,每一次看它,總是思緒如泉湧...做粉絲要刷鞋的話,當學不強難立先生:<br /><br />「《哲道行者》我已經看過了很多遍,每一次看它,總是思緒如泉湧,總是被它深深的感動:它的作者對生命是如此的真誠,對人性的瞭解是如此的深刻,對思考之道的論述是如此的精闢透徹…在孤寂的逆旅生活之中,重看此書,細想當世學術,再思自己的教與學,竟有一洗心垢、鉛華盡去的感覺。心有所感,發而為文,此乃開此論線的緣起。」<br /><br />「然而,我並沒有打算對李生所提出的哲道作系統的論述。李生的哲道,意蘊深遠,精微玄奧,實難以通過三言兩語對它作出恰當的論述。本論線旨在對李生的哲道或提出側面的觀察或加以發揮或據此以批判各種桎梏人心的(哲學或非哲學的)謬見謬論。」<br /><br />「依我的觀察,李生所展示的哲道切實有用、毫無破綻,堪稱哲學的典範。(認為2李生的哲道有漏洞的人宜多與棋藝超絕的高手下棋。與此等高手下棋,所得到的每每是血的教訓:竊以為已經找到可進攻對方的空隙,其實已被對方所佈下的後著封殺。正所謂一子錯,滿盤皆落索。)以它來審視當世學術,剖析時下流行的觀點和思潮,當有意想不到的收穫。」Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-67248716568272129912012-06-18T10:26:55.019-07:002012-06-18T10:26:55.019-07:00就係因為你話我兩鬢斑白,刺激到我要寫詩!就係因為你話我兩鬢斑白,刺激到我要寫詩!W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-16124863655918562962012-06-18T01:47:27.105-07:002012-06-18T01:47:27.105-07:00斑白的兩鬢?我成了王Sir之繆思矣!
粉絲之二斑白的兩鬢?我成了王Sir之繆思矣!<br /><br />粉絲之二Meshinoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-2932877811363184662012-06-17T23:55:49.082-07:002012-06-17T23:55:49.082-07:00Whether a preposition is correct is determined not...Whether a preposition is correct is determined not simply by its meaning but also by usage. This is why non-native speakers easily make mistakes when using prepositions. For example, "You arrived <i>in</i> Beijing" but "You arrived <i>at</i> the Beijing Capital Airport"; and "She got an A <i>in</i> Physics" but "She got an A <i>on</i> the Physics quiz".W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-5853141244600106862012-06-17T23:22:23.238-07:002012-06-17T23:22:23.238-07:00http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/with
2c...http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/with<br /><br />2c. in respect tokfwnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-58588031287546255772012-06-17T21:24:36.769-07:002012-06-17T21:24:36.769-07:00You are right. Actually, instead of the propositio...You are right. Actually, instead of the propositions captured by truth conditions, I was thinking about the concrete utterances "p" and "I am saying that p" when I talked about their equivalence, referring to the fact that one can't assert either one of them and assert the negation of the other at the same time. But on second thought, perhaps this is too weak a relation for me to say they are equivalent assertions.Derek Lamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07873539530484853426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-46381453421499253462012-06-17T19:41:21.232-07:002012-06-17T19:41:21.232-07:00真係?唔好嚇我呀!真係?唔好嚇我呀!W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-35539073451704538412012-06-17T18:31:02.794-07:002012-06-17T18:31:02.794-07:00"Towards" is correct, meaning "in f..."Towards" is correct, meaning "in face of".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-55755426385681049642012-06-17T18:29:28.883-07:002012-06-17T18:29:28.883-07:00唔好話自己係粉絲呀,話得多王教授就會變成李天命喇 XD唔好話自己係粉絲呀,話得多王教授就會變成李天命喇 XDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-34224068477419327272012-06-17T10:53:12.754-07:002012-06-17T10:53:12.754-07:00謝謝。詩興到便會寫。謝謝。詩興到便會寫。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-59786776782670064752012-06-17T07:45:07.317-07:002012-06-17T07:45:07.317-07:00第一次留言。你的小詩平易近人又雋永有餘味,這首蝴蝶夢醒我真的很喜歡,忍不住留言,請多寫!
粉絲之一...第一次留言。你的小詩平易近人又雋永有餘味,這首蝴蝶夢醒我真的很喜歡,忍不住留言,請多寫!<br /><br />粉絲之一Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-2097850458095619822012-06-17T06:35:51.903-07:002012-06-17T06:35:51.903-07:00I had asked several native speakers (including my ...I had asked several native speakers (including my son) before I published this essay; they all agreed that it should be "towards" and "with" is wrong.W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-16256311059264798582012-06-17T06:33:04.412-07:002012-06-17T06:33:04.412-07:00我已問過他,他完全同意我的看法。我已問過他,他完全同意我的看法。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-65835692806485845362012-06-17T05:51:55.776-07:002012-06-17T05:51:55.776-07:00i think the whole purpose of that 「貴氣一點」的句子 is abo...i think the whole purpose of that 「貴氣一點」的句子 is about distancing yourself from showing your true self ... to keep it from 「太過外露」, "with" is better than "towards", which is a bit too direct, too expressive ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-28727507383874891862012-06-17T05:26:03.473-07:002012-06-17T05:26:03.473-07:00還是找你的兒子來定奪吧!他沒有其他語言的污染,應該是最準的!還是找你的兒子來定奪吧!他沒有其他語言的污染,應該是最準的!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-22207839696117843802012-06-17T04:40:36.310-07:002012-06-17T04:40:36.310-07:00明白了,原來「用兩個否定詞去表達一個否定」才是習非成是的明白了,原來「用兩個否定詞去表達一個否定」才是習非成是的Heimannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-6844871769363782792012-06-17T02:12:33.069-07:002012-06-17T02:12:33.069-07:00But if "p" and "I am saying that p&...But if "p" and "I am saying that p" are related, then is "not p" related to "i am not saying that p" or rather to "i am saying that not p"? It is not the same anyway. <br /><br />And if so, then is "not not p" related to "i am saying that not not p" or to "i am not saying that not p" or to "it is not true that i am not saying that p"...? All these are also not the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-17573566011912831982012-06-17T01:22:12.179-07:002012-06-17T01:22:12.179-07:00可參考這個簡單的解釋:http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/doubneg...可參考這個簡單的解釋:<a href="http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/doubnegterm.htm" rel="nofollow">http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/doubnegterm.htm</a>W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-27888526668023428532012-06-17T01:18:07.888-07:002012-06-17T01:18:07.888-07:00這兩者英文都叫 "double negative",假如譯做「雙重否定」,那麼這...這兩者英文都叫 "double negative",假如譯做「雙重否定」,那麼這兩者都是雙重否定。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-7069321325803681632012-06-17T01:12:25.513-07:002012-06-17T01:12:25.513-07:00我有點混亂
「用兩個否定詞去表達一個否定」和「否定之否定」是否都是雙重否定?我有點混亂<br />「用兩個否定詞去表達一個否定」和「否定之否定」是否都是雙重否定?Heimannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-6380240943720118042012-06-17T00:20:53.190-07:002012-06-17T00:20:53.190-07:00But "p" and "I am saying that p&quo...But "p" and "I am saying that p" don't mean the same and are not logically equivalent (they can have different truth values).W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-87882998712847083682012-06-17T00:12:12.614-07:002012-06-17T00:12:12.614-07:00Just wondering, what if we say "p" and &...Just wondering, what if we say "p" and "I am saying that p" are equivalent? And so, "not p" and "I am not saying that p" are equivalent. Thus, by substituting "p" with "not-q", "not not q" is equivalent to "I am not saying that not q". That is, what CY said was a case of double negation after all.Derek Lamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07873539530484853426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-21426191607720178622012-06-16T20:22:23.719-07:002012-06-16T20:22:23.719-07:00否定之否定,就是雙重否定,梁振英那句不是否定之否定,因為第一個否定沒有否定第二個否定。
我說雙重否...否定之否定,就是雙重否定,梁振英那句不是否定之否定,因為第一個否定沒有否定第二個否定。<br /><br />我說雙重否定(即否定之否定)有同一對象,只是方便的說法,準確點說,是其中一個否定以另一個否定為對象。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-21932585481332709772012-06-16T19:15:36.670-07:002012-06-16T19:15:36.670-07:00雙重否定是語法學概念,好像法文西文那樣,每次都要用兩個否定詞去表達一個否定。
梁振英那種,大概不能...雙重否定是語法學概念,好像法文西文那樣,每次都要用兩個否定詞去表達一個否定。<br /><br />梁振英那種,大概不能說是雙重否定吧,只能說是否定之否定。對嗎?格勉noreply@blogger.com