who needs the hassle...

who needs the hassle if an accident were to happen during your performance?

請問這句該怎麼翻意呢??

請問這句該怎麼翻意呢??

請問這句該怎麼翻意呢??

謝謝!!

5 個解答

評分
  • 9 年前
    最佳解答

    who needs the hassle if an accident were to happen during your performance?

    誰都不想在妳正在表演時出了什麼狀況而必須去處理善後.

    Who needs the hassle:有誰需要"這麻煩呢?

    If an accident were to happen:如果意外發生的話

    during your performance:妳表演的時候.

    整句的語意就如上面.

    希望有幫助

    2011-07-01 18:55:42 補充:

    Dear Ed, you might be right that "hassle" means "dispute" in the context, but I have to respectfully disgree, strongly I might add.

    2011-07-02 18:41:24 補充:

    World English Dictionary

    hassle (ˈhæs ə l)

    — n

    1. a prolonged argument; wrangle

    2. a great deal of trouble; difficulty; nuisance

    I guess each has a different interpretation.

    2011-07-02 18:41:33 補充:

    in your case, "stressing the arguments of who is to blame.

    in my view, the messy consequences of handling the aftermath.

    2011-07-03 02:24:30 補充:

    這句在日常生活使用的頻率實在太高了,我時在沒聽過Who needs the hassle if.................是翻成"爭吵的",尊重您的意見,一方面也不願意去改變您的想法.

    這句的意思應該是:(我們應該做好萬全的準備)誰都不想在妳正在表演時出了什麼狀況而必須去處理善後.(這裡的處理善後就是所謂的hassle). Who needs the hassle (誰需要這個麻煩呢?)

    2011-07-03 02:25:44 補充:

    Then again, I could be wrong. But still, Thanks for sharing.

    參考資料: jim
  • 9 年前

    同意jim在意見欄009裡的說法!!

  • 9 年前

    【爭吵】也是另一種形式的【麻煩】

    我想兩位大師看法的出入可能不在 hassle

    而在(表演)時間點的不同

    Ed大師推斷表演已經結束了

    jim大師認為表演還沒開始

    我個人認為線索不足(缺上下文)

    句子用 were to (如前陣子日本核災報導,最常見的 If a serious nuclear accident were to happen..)這種可能性極低的表述(不是每天都會發生,所以含與現在事實相反之意),表示截至目前沒有accident(所以也沒有hassle),但 who needs the hassle ,讓人懷疑表演活動(可能是一季的)還在進行中。

    2011-07-03 09:27:53 補充:

    推論的潛在思維: no accidents happened yet, so keep up the good work (safety measures, that sort of thing)...

    個人淺見,不登大雅之堂

  • Ed
    Lv 6
    9 年前

    這是與現在事實相反的假設語法。

    「要是你表演出了意外,誰還有勁吵架呢?」

    Hassle:除了「麻煩」之意,美語中尚有「爭執,爭吵」之意。

    此處可能意指後者。

    2011-07-02 14:11:26 補充:

    Thanks, Jim, for your comment. If "hassle" implies "trouble", then it's hard to establish the casual relationship b/t "who needs the hassle" and the if-clause, because no one would need ANY trouble at ANY condition.

    2011-07-02 14:17:36 補充:

    However, if "hassle" implies the dispute on who's to blame for the accident, then the mentioned casual relationship is held, though the dispute is not productive in such a situation. Just my 2c.

    2011-07-02 14:36:01 補充:

    Casual relationship should be causal relationship. Forgive my fat finger.

    2011-07-03 01:24:59 補充:

    同意您的二種解釋。

    我的疑惑是,在作第二義「麻煩」解時,難道本句是指:

    要是你表演中出了意外事故,誰會要惹麻煩,因而會棄你不顧嗎?

    我所以有此疑惑,主因句中用了「與現在事實相反的假設」。

    其事實是:表演沒有意外。若是一般條件句,或可解為:

    為了不想惹麻煩,衆人都希望(預祝)表演成功。

    為知識大家共勉之。

  • 您覺得這個回答如何?您可以登入為回答投票。
  • 9 年前

    不要落井下石了!

    這是假設語氣的句子

    白話是:

    "演出都出狀況了,心裡已經很不舒服了,還來講一些五四三的話"

    一時想不出較貼切的成語!!

還有問題?馬上發問,尋求解答。