tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post9058872153652517404..comments2024-03-22T08:04:05.869-07:00Comments on 魚之樂: 讀者的寬容和作者的權威Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-82103683939259025202011-08-16T21:20:19.412-07:002011-08-16T21:20:19.412-07:00My bad experience about some social scientist'...My bad experience about some social scientist's writing published in some professional journal was that I could use two short paragraphs (120 words top) to express what he wanted to say instead of his thousands of words. I mean expressing everything but not just summarizing. (I think he's an American). His sentences were just like Mr. Hui's. I was told by some American English professors that some social scientist's writings were really bad. I didn't know exactly how bad it was until I read that paper. I thought it was just that the English professors were too hard on those social scientists because English was their profession and they had high standard of English writing. But I was wrong. Some of these people's writing were bad. But if they just wrote 2 or 3 short paragraphs, how could they get published? Should they be forgiven? That kind of writing won't pass any editors of science journals. I have never seen writings like that in the science papers (quite a bit of them) I have read. Nowadays researchers are judged by how many papers they publish, as a criterion for promotion, but not by the quality of the papers so much. Even if they write good English, the papers may be poor in quality. Whose fault is that? I am not in academia. So, it's not self pity on my part. If Mr Hui gets the same money from the newspaper publisher when he writes concisely and clearly, maybe he won't use the verbose and unclear writing style. by zpdrmnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-20917640490438979532011-07-31T09:04:25.974-07:002011-07-31T09:04:25.974-07:00/*如果你認為當年李天命對梁燕城的批評不是言重,便不應說我言重了*/
對,李生的批評當然不言重。/*如果你認為當年李天命對梁燕城的批評不是言重,便不應說我言重了*/<br /><br />對,李生的批評當然不言重。Yanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05543452661425487649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-23214957881982381112011-07-31T08:54:06.167-07:002011-07-31T08:54:06.167-07:00Yan,
//當我讀那句說話,我真的理解成以上的這樣子。那說話我們可以有不同的解釋,但都是可理解的...Yan,<br /><br />//當我讀那句說話,我真的理解成以上的這樣子。那說話我們可以有不同的解釋,但都是可理解的。你說那說話是語理錯亂,我認為,言重了。//<br /><br />- 語理錯亂不同於不能理解(unintelligible)。如果你認為當年李天命對梁燕城的批評不是言重,便不應說我言重了(我還沒有用到李的標準去批評許);許比梁語理錯亂的情況更嚴重,不只是文筆洋化生硬。<br /><br />//我想你認為很多歐美佬的人文學科寫作,很多也是語理錯亂。//<br /><br />- 對。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-2342629065986690732011-07-31T08:43:22.112-07:002011-07-31T08:43:22.112-07:00楚門,
謝謝。許文大意我是看到的,只是細節令我吃不消。楚門,<br /><br />謝謝。許文大意我是看到的,只是細節令我吃不消。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-71884794565050347992011-07-31T07:55:57.071-07:002011-07-31T07:55:57.071-07:00楚門﹕
我相信阿王不是不明許寶強寫甚麼﹐而且批評他文筆差﹐還有整些奇奇怪怪的學術名詞來故弄玄虛。
...楚門﹕<br />我相信阿王不是不明許寶強寫甚麼﹐而且批評他文筆差﹐還有整些奇奇怪怪的學術名詞來故弄玄虛。<br /><br />又﹐由於現在報紙上不少文字販子﹐文筆差到核爆﹐故此﹐我們現在談「讀者的寬容」﹐已變為「寬容作者文筆差」的代名詞﹐跟以前的「不以人廢言」﹐沾不上邊。文少http://jonathan_sky.mysinablog.com/index.phpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-48299827210533181612011-07-31T07:17:40.214-07:002011-07-31T07:17:40.214-07:00王仔:
當我讀那句說話,我真的理解成以上的這樣子。那說話我們可以有不同的解釋,但都是可理解的。你說...王仔:<br /><br />當我讀那句說話,我真的理解成以上的這樣子。那說話我們可以有不同的解釋,但都是可理解的。你說那說話是語理錯亂,我認為,言重了。<br /><br />BTW,我想你認為很多歐美佬的人文學科寫作,很多也是語理錯亂。Yanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05543452661425487649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-63823812981440256882011-07-31T04:10:36.935-07:002011-07-31T04:10:36.935-07:00可能因為我對許文的論點比較熟悉, 因此又不覺得難以明白。(同類說法近來已有不少人講過)
容我發揮一下...可能因為我對許文的論點比較熟悉, 因此又不覺得難以明白。(同類說法近來已有不少人講過)<br />容我發揮一下「讀者的寬容」, 為許教授解畫。全文的內容, 可總結如下:<br /><br />1. 香港政府與資產階級一直行使制度暴力, 剝削無產階級, 而且近來此情況越演越烈;<br />2. 提到「階級鬥爭」, 香港人一般會聯想到文革;<br />3. 既然香港人聞「階級鬥爭」色變, 政界社運界就要改用另一套「話語」, 例如齊澤克的說法, 方可鼓動群眾。<br /><br />總而言之, 就如老毛的名言: 香港人應「丟掉幻想, 準備鬥爭。」楚門noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-45285480341845415392011-07-30T17:44:38.154-07:002011-07-30T17:44:38.154-07:00Yan,
如果你不斷試,總可以將原句「譯成」清楚的句子,問題是我們難以知道那是不是許的原意。Yan,<br /><br />如果你不斷試,總可以將原句「譯成」清楚的句子,問題是我們難以知道那是不是許的原意。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-40622162419100078302011-07-30T17:44:26.430-07:002011-07-30T17:44:26.430-07:00文少,
你的解法通,我的解法也通,而問題是許文原句不清楚。文少,<br /><br />你的解法通,我的解法也通,而問題是許文原句不清楚。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-5490672702361623132011-07-30T17:34:30.803-07:002011-07-30T17:34:30.803-07:00Sorry, 是這樣:
儘管「階級鬥爭」不易言說,但仍然不能完全掩蓋有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的...Sorry, 是這樣:<br /><br />儘管「階級鬥爭」不易言說,但仍然不能完全掩蓋有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪 <b> ; </b> 這種掠奪正不斷升級。Yanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05543452661425487649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-13401590592688496162011-07-30T17:21:36.373-07:002011-07-30T17:21:36.373-07:00Wong,
/*『「階級鬥爭」不易言說』和「有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪」有何關係?*/
...Wong,<br /><br />/*『「階級鬥爭」不易言說』和「有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪」有何關係?*/<br /><br />可能,前者表達論說階級鬥爭的困難;後者是階級鬥爭這客觀的事實。<br /><br />/*是前者掩蓋(卻又不完全掩蓋)後者?*/<br /><br />可能是,他說的可能是前者阻礙對後者的認知。<br /><br />/*為何會掩蓋?如何掩蓋?*/<br /><br />因為對客觀事物的認知,很多時要依靠語言;對某事物論說有困難自然令對這事物認知有困難。<br /><br />/*你將原句拆開,不但沒有令句子清楚,反而加了一重歧義*/<br /><br />這又如何;<br /><br />『儘管「階級鬥爭」不易言說,但仍然不能完全掩蓋有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪 <b> ; </b> 這種掠奪正不斷升級Yanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05543452661425487649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-28686608601631180902011-07-30T14:21:51.574-07:002011-07-30T14:21:51.574-07:00William,
單就文字論,我認為許比沈更差。William,<br /><br />單就文字論,我認為許比沈更差。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-32472508215786680262011-07-30T13:12:49.726-07:002011-07-30T13:12:49.726-07:00有時難免要同情地理解作者的意思,相比起來許要比沈文容易得多了。
我相信你改學生功課或考試都遇到不少這...有時難免要同情地理解作者的意思,相比起來許要比沈文容易得多了。<br />我相信你改學生功課或考試都遇到不少這類情況。Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06505437709297528617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-73746477941598753142011-07-30T11:16:59.908-07:002011-07-30T11:16:59.908-07:00寫錯了﹐更簡單的寫法是﹕
儘管大家都不敢談「階級鬥爭」﹐但仍無法掩飾有產者掠奪過去由無產者共享的資源...寫錯了﹐更簡單的寫法是﹕<br />儘管大家都不敢談「階級鬥爭」﹐但仍無法掩飾有產者掠奪過去由無產者共享的資源﹐而且這種掠奪正不斷升級。文少http://jonathan_sky.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-40312072200515505162011-07-30T11:13:54.282-07:002011-07-30T11:13:54.282-07:00//這是不是語理錯亂的長句? //
不用說得那麼複雜﹐這根本是狗屁不通的句子
單是「有產者對無產者過...//這是不是語理錯亂的長句? //<br />不用說得那麼複雜﹐這根本是狗屁不通的句子<br />單是「有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪」﹐就是低能的寫法﹐掠奪本身可作動詞用﹐何解要用「對...的掠奪」這種格式﹖<br />「無產者過去共享的資源」﹐這寫法也是狗屁﹐應寫作「過去由無產者共享的資源」<br />因此﹐在不改動原意的情況下﹐這句應寫為「有產者掠奪過去由無產者共享的資源」<br /><br />而「掩蓋」二字﹐個人認為應用「掩飾」<br />「不易言說」﹐是「不易開口」之意﹐但從上文下理推斷﹐似乎更似「不敢哼聲」之意。<br /><br />我認為﹐在不大改動他的句子下﹐他本來的意思是﹕<br />儘管大家都不敢哼聲社會存在「階級鬥爭」﹐但仍無法掩飾有產者掠奪過去由無產者共享的資源﹐而且這種掠奪正不斷升級。文少http://jonathan_sky.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-42376709334651181822011-07-30T10:40:46.231-07:002011-07-30T10:40:46.231-07:00Yan,
//『儘管「階級鬥爭」不易言說,但仍然不能完全掩蓋有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪,這...Yan,<br /><br />//『儘管「階級鬥爭」不易言說,但仍然不能完全掩蓋有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪,這種掠奪正不斷升級。』<br />這是不是語理錯亂的長句?//<br /><br />- 仍是。首先,『「階級鬥爭」不易言說』和「有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪」有何關係?是前者掩蓋(卻又不完全掩蓋)後者?為何會掩蓋?如何掩蓋?<br /><br />此外,你將原句拆開,不但沒有令句子清楚,反而加了一重歧義:不能完全掩蓋的,是:<br />(1) 有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪<br />還是:<br />(2) 有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪 + 這種掠奪正不斷升級?W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-31021145499523875932011-07-30T10:12:17.314-07:002011-07-30T10:12:17.314-07:00『儘管「階級鬥爭」不易言說,但仍然不能完全掩蓋有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪,這種掠奪正不斷升級...『儘管「階級鬥爭」不易言說,但仍然不能完全掩蓋有產者對無產者過去共享的資源的掠奪,這種掠奪正不斷升級。』<br /><br />這是不是語理錯亂的長句?Yanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05543452661425487649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-34637322513108412272011-07-30T09:10:33.216-07:002011-07-30T09:10:33.216-07:00文少,
鞭闢入裏,好!文少,<br /><br />鞭闢入裏,好!W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-9270428459003069572011-07-30T09:01:17.750-07:002011-07-30T09:01:17.750-07:00要明白許寶強的文章﹐不難﹐前提是你知在他炫耀文嚇細路
其實他要說的﹐簡直老掉牙。
簡而言之﹐就是借...要明白許寶強的文章﹐不難﹐前提是你知在他炫耀文嚇細路<br /><br />其實他要說的﹐簡直老掉牙。<br />簡而言之﹐就是借一些近來發生的時事資訊﹐指出香港有階級矛盾﹐而且日發尖銳﹐但由於六七暴動這歷史因素﹐同建制刻意淡化﹐令大家沒留意﹑或不敢提階級矛盾。<br />之後﹐就是文抄公時段﹐抄抄抄抄抄<br />最後﹐就是呼籲大家不要再玩排外﹐要無產階級階級大團結<br /><br />總之﹐每次看他的文﹐都覺得條友是呃稿費的﹐論點百字內寫完﹐吹二千字﹐抄人拋書包佔字一千﹐再自創一堆「蘇格蘭場放暑假」的學術名詞呃細路﹐掂。文少http://jonathan_sky.mysinablog.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-28602672859081117332011-07-30T08:38:04.934-07:002011-07-30T08:38:04.934-07:00楚門,
多謝澄清,已換了另一個例子。楚門,<br /><br />多謝澄清,已換了另一個例子。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-21306286584342753892011-07-30T08:36:48.745-07:002011-07-30T08:36:48.745-07:00//你是不是第一次讀許的文章?//
- 不是,但全篇讀完的還是第一次。//你是不是第一次讀許的文章?//<br /><br />- 不是,但全篇讀完的還是第一次。W. Wonghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07161244576570372004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-30052987485627263732011-07-30T07:33:53.549-07:002011-07-30T07:33:53.549-07:00「街頭抗爭」係指近幾年來社民連及一些「80後」年輕人搞的抗爭活動。此類「街頭抗爭」, 比香港過往一般...「街頭抗爭」係指近幾年來社民連及一些「80後」年輕人搞的抗爭活動。此類「街頭抗爭」, 比香港過往一般的抗議遊行激烈, 因此被作者當作是證明和平理性政治是虛幻的證據。楚門noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4010478591191633760.post-68797056622032880982011-07-30T02:36:42.127-07:002011-07-30T02:36:42.127-07:00王sir
你是不是第一次讀許的文章?王sir<br />你是不是第一次讀許的文章?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com