Dark Helmet 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 6 年前

Granted/Granting that?

日前看到這個問題覺得有點納悶。為確保發問者能夠得到正確的解答,請各位高手幫忙:

Q:有2個句子要請教一下文法Granting he is old,he is strong. 雖然他老了,但還很健狀granting是什麼意思,我查了字典,但對不起來 Conceded that he was ill,she still cared about the plan.雖然他病了,但他仍然關心這個計劃conceded是什麼意思 最佳解答先是說:It shall be "granting that" (即使),but "that" was omitted. "granting that" is a phrase. 後來又補充:By the way, sometimes, you use "granted that", forexample: Granted that (=In spite of the fact that) it is a simple testto perform, she still fails miserably. The difference is whether the statement is a passive voice oran active voice. 我的疑問是這類句子能用 active voice 嗎?這樣 “strong"指的不就變成說“即便他老了.."這個人嗎?除非兩個“他”是同一個人,那麼句子的意思就是“他承認自己老了,但他還是很健康” 不過我個人認為這種說法很牽強。 我上google 查詢 “grantingthat” 出現的第一個網頁,(想必DaSaGwa( 大師1 級) 補充的內容也來自於此(因為例句驚人地相似)。在該頁並沒有看到 granting 的用法,甚至有不會用 granting只用 granted 的說法。 但很奇怪DaSaGwa ( 大師 1 級 )又補充: However, most of the time, people doesn't really care whichone to use between "granting that" and "granted that".After all, whether it is an active or passive voice, it really depends upon thespeaker's point of view. 我很不願意想像在知識有人給了錯誤的解答,並且google 後發現自己的解答錯誤,但為了點數或面子竟然繼續誤導發問者。 若非如此那又做何解釋? 第二題也牽涉到 active/passive:Conceded 分明是被動,即 wasconceded (to) 的意思撇開文法問題:(應該寫 she hadconceded)不談如果句子的意思真是She conceded that he was ill, but still caredabout the plan. 那前面應該是 Conceding 或 Having conceded.這是依我個人極有限的英文知識所做的理解,如才疏學淺說的不對請各位不吝賜教。

已更新項目:

感謝 rjamesho ( 大師 1 級 ), 許久以來你一直是我肯定的高手之一,分析的比我有條理多了!

7 個解答

評分
  • 6 年前
    最佳解答

    In the spirit of learning English, here are my thoughts:

    (1) 我的疑問是這類句子能用 active voice 嗎?==》(i) “Granted”的詞性在這裡是連接副詞(conjunctive adverb, such as however, before, finally, subsequently…etc.); (ii) 正確的用法是 past participle indicating a “given condition”。然而因為 “granted that”是個idiom, 其文法就不是那麼清楚界定;而顯然也有人採用主動語氣《granting》的。Who am I to argue with this famous British writer, C.S.Lewis? J Even so, it is my view that using active voice would inevitably raise the issue of the subject; i.e. who isgiving/granting the presupposition? Therefore,it is more prudent to just stick with passive voice, and use the past participle. (2) 第二題也牽涉到 active/passive:Conceded that he was ill, she still cared about the plan.雖然他病了, 但他仍然關心這個計劃

    ==》根據上面提供的邏輯思維,“conceding” and “having conceded” (both in active voice) are bettered choices than “conceded” (passive voice) when the subject can be clearly identified. 上面的例句中,中文的翻譯是不合邏輯的。例句中concede的主詞是she, 而不是虛主詞it, 更不是he,所以應該用主動語氣:conceding或是having conceded。此句因此也可以寫成:She, having conceded that he was ill, still cared about the plan。正確的翻譯是:《儘管(她承認)『他』生病了,『她』(當時)仍然關心這個計劃。》

  • 6 年前

    Confucius said and I quote "Respect yourself, or no one else will respect you." Someone who constantly bluffs novice members with bogus, far-fetched answers hardly impresses yours truly as someone having a shred of respect for herself nor for the aforementioned members.

    2014-02-24 20:28:48 補充:

    Demanding others to respect such person simply because she has been "nice to us" is like deeming a thief decent because he has stolen only from your neighbors and not from you.

    2014-02-25 05:27:53 補充:

    Again, I have no problems with incorrect answers. In fact, I commend the effort as most people learn quickly through mistakes. So please comprehend that the bone I have to pick is her bluffing, not her incompetence.

    2014-02-25 05:28:53 補充:

    It is also a wonder to me that, when you see someone knowingly delivering bogus advice, and the extent to which she would go to convince them to take it for gospel, how can you remain a bystander? What would be the point of coming to this forum?

    2014-02-25 05:53:04 補充:

    To those who are inclined to think of them as honest mistakes that were not committed intentionally, please refer to comment 015, in which she pointed out the FACT that 2 of my 3 questions were in honor OF her.

    2014-02-25 05:53:18 補充:

    Mind you, I hadn't mentioned a single name in that post. Why would you think the question was referring to you without feeling that you yourself fit the description of "someone misleading novice members"?

    2014-02-25 05:55:46 補充:

    請大家上DaSaGwa ( 大師 1 級 )提供的網頁查證我的罪行之餘,順便看看該頁的問題和其解答。 我的態度不友善是事實(因為友善多次明顯的沒有用) ,但我說的 牽強附會自圓其說和誤導發問者不也是事實嗎?

    意見017講得好, 既然知道這是 English forum, 不是 a game of Balderdash. 只要目的是幫助發問者,回答有錯可以透過大家的討論吸收新的知識, 這不正是成立 Discussion Forums 的用意嗎?

    我不會也不贊同看到別人不正確的答案就惡言批評。只要是誠心為幫助發問者, 無論回答是否正確我都會肯定他對此社區的貢獻。

    2014-02-25 05:56:34 補充:

    飯可以多吃,話不能亂講,正因為你在知識說的話比以前更有說服力,才更應該謹慎。 而不是利用網友的信任,不懂時還憑空掰出來出來的答案,靠著“大師“和 ”分類版主“ 頭銜為你的答案背書,不求答案正確,只求人相信,利用已經太大的帽子去換取更大的帽子。 有沒有想過對那些信以為真的初學者可能造成的影響? 或許想過,但跟當選最佳解答相比, who cares? 的確,在網路上被你誤導的人不可能找你負責, 那些稍有程度的人因看了你的答案而昏倒或吐血的人的當然也不可能找你付醫藥費

    2014-02-25 07:18:02 補充:

    我自己也曾發現很多年前學到的資訊原來是錯的, 尤其是在還是一張白紙的學習階段被灌輸的概念最難擺脫, 造成的困擾最大。我不想看到你為了過過幹癮,不但對別人造成同樣的困擾,更埋沒了你在二手車市場不可限量的大好前途。

    自己犯了罪,還讓DaSaGwa ( 大師 1 級 ) 這麼辛苦的蒐集我的“不友善”罪證,真是汗顏!所以我也幫她找出幾項鐵證。 各位若有興趣加入討伐的陣容請過目:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    2014-02-25 14:50:17 補充:

    Jesus! You still don't get the point, do you? Here it is again, and this time please try to get it through that skull of yours. Not knowing the answer is not a problem! The problem is:

    KNOWINGLY GIVE AN INCORRECT ANSWER. KNOWINGLY! AS IN DELIBERATELY! INTENTIONALLY! PURPOSELY!

    Comprende?

    2014-02-26 22:36:19 補充:

    獅王說了個很貼切也正是我要說卻找不到的字眼-天馬行空. 不過首先要向你和路易士,LL,inmate道歉並說明我指的不是這兩題,當時由於她又在硬拗,查到和自己說的答案不一樣不但不告訴發問者,更自圓其說不讓別人告訴發問者. 在孤掌難鳴氣憤沒人站出來而"爆發"的狀況下我才說了那些話. 其實我明白你們不是那種看戲不說的人,只是你們不像我時常注意她有沒有再誤導發問者,所以有些問題沒有看到. 也有幾次你們說了一句她就拗了十幾句,你們覺得多說無益懶得理她,而我覺得她明知我們不可能被她的歪理說服,被誤導的只有發問者,所以選擇力爭,兩種做法都沒錯.

    2014-02-27 07:20:22 補充:

    碰到不懂的問題時,先用邏輯思考一套理論出來是很多人都會的,但是不經求證就當成事實來發表不僅沒幫到還可能害了發問者! 我也知道很多人,包括我想幫的初學發問者在內,都認為我言辭太犀利. 我曾不止一次好言相勸,希望她能明白這是不負責任的,除了說明妳的熱心以外於事無補,

    2014-02-27 08:27:35 補充:

    的確,“天馬行空”比“唬弄”更符合我的感覺。我也寧願相信她是當時執著。對於現在她咬著我的“不友善”不放,大家可以參考我發的第一個問題,從頭到尾都沒提任何人的名字,jailbird 問我是誰我只說是平時對論壇都貢獻很大的人,也許因為過分熱心而沒有察覺。升級大師,分類版主本來都是好事,但是影響力大了後,說的反而“天馬行空的讓人覺得在唬弄” 而且屢次鼓吹文法不需要學,自然而然可以達到她的程度,不想她這套邏輯正是拜不懂文法所賜, 那我只有戳破她的泡沫了。

  • 6 年前

    Maybe this is not a place for me to speak, but I wish to say something, I hope that you don't mind.

    Master DaSaGwa has always been nice to us, and he is willing to dig deep for a problem and search for different solutions to it.

    I always appreciate his attitude and gentleness.

    2014-02-24 02:27:19 補充:

    I think that anyone behaves like this deserve a better respect.

    From my perspective, all of you are masters in English or language. I don't see any reason why we all cannot be more harmonious.

    Although I am just a single vote, I hope everyone can interact happily...

  • 6 年前

    If you google "granting that", you will get 50,000,000 hits!

    Dark Helmet!

    Your purpose of posting this question is NOT for finding a correct answer. Let me remind you of some mistakes you have made:

    2014-02-21 14:19:44 補充:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    in opinion#001

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    in opinion #005

    2014-02-21 14:21:13 補充:

    Yes, the example sentence:

    Granted that (=In spite of the fact that) it is a simple test to perform, she still fails miserably.

    2014-02-21 14:21:53 補充:

    is from Internet searches. My purpose to tell poster that you can use both "granted that" and "granting that".

    To avoid COPY RIGHT, I have altered the sentence a little.

    2014-02-21 14:23:08 補充:

    From masters rjamesho and LionEnglish, I hope you can agree with me that using "granted that" and "granting that" is up to the speaker.

    2014-02-21 14:25:45 補充:

    撇開文法問題:(應該寫 she had conceded)不談

    Using "she conceded" or "she had conceded" really is just matter of at what point on the time line speaker makes the statement.

    2014-02-21 14:27:43 補充:

    She conceded that he was ill, but still cared about the plan.

    or

    She had conceded that he was ill, but still cared about the plan.

    are all grammatically correct. However, the context has some minute difference.

    2014-02-21 14:31:10 補充:

    Your hostile attitude toward me is really unnecessary, especially, we don't even know each other. Yet you have to use language like:

    牽強附會 自圓其說 誤導發問者

    以斗筲之才充大師我們可以一笑置之

    2014-02-21 14:33:40 補充:

    With your kind of English ability, yet with this kind of attitude, I think you are really a waste.

    Since you have done this kind of personal attack AGAIN. I like to ask you WHY ?

    2014-02-21 14:36:58 補充:

    This is an English forum, you have the right to point out the mistake I make, but there is NO need to use language like:

    牽強附會 自圓其說 誤導發問者

    以斗筲之才充大師我們可以一笑置之

    2014-02-21 14:42:53 補充:

    Let me ask you, is using language like those listed above for your own pleasure or for discussion? For those who like to know DarkHemlet's attitude, you can go to my profile and read his "NICE" comments on me, then you will KNOW the purpose of such a posting.

    2014-02-21 14:44:38 補充:

    DarkHelmet has post 3 questions for his being in YK+ 6 years 8 months. During this period of time, he has post 3 questions. He has posted TWO questions in honor me:

    2014-02-21 14:45:07 補充:

    Besides this current one, the other one is:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    2014-02-21 14:46:41 補充:

    To all the users in the English forum, please step out and give a fair comment about such an annoying behavior without any merit!

    2014-02-21 14:47:53 補充:

    DarkHelmet! Please DON'T remove this question! Let it stay, so I can always refer to it to let people know YOU better.

    2014-02-22 02:14:05 補充:

    He has posted TWO questions in honor me:

    ==>He has posted TWO questions in honor of (or in honoring) me:

    I guess this typo should be another issue that DarkHelmet will pick on me for his pleasure.

    2014-02-22 02:16:36 補充:

    牽強附會 自圓其說 誤導發問者

    stated in rating of this question:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    2014-02-22 02:17:49 補充:

    以斗筲之才充大師我們可以一笑置之

    stated in opinion #002 of this question:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    2014-02-22 02:19:11 補充:

    These are just a couple of examples, there are even more among my more than 1150 answered questions.

    2014-02-25 13:24:49 補充:

    If DarkHelmet's purpose is to let users KNOW what I have answered wrong. Unfortunately, SHE has ONLY done it for the answer I have done wrong or even just imperfectly.

    2014-02-25 13:26:58 補充:

    I have NOT seen him doing the same thing to OTHERS. If so, please tell me what her PURPOSE is. In my opinion, she is using such a great cause to satisfy her own personal grudges against me. I don't think such a forum is for this kind of purpose. Users shall evict such a behavior

    2014-02-25 13:29:12 補充:

    In this world, people like DarkHelmet thinks she is the Saint of the world who will SAVE those poor souls. Nevertheless, the truth is SHE is doing it for her own personal agenda and prejudice.

    2014-02-25 13:32:06 補充:

    Let me put it this way, if DarkHelmet really has such an elegant purpose, all I ask for is NOT to use the bad language and attitude when I make mistakes, but like other masters who have pointed out my mistakes,

    2014-02-25 13:32:50 補充:

    the most recent one:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    I will humbly accept and apologize my shortcoming.

    2014-02-25 13:34:20 補充:

    At the same time, I would appreciate 110% that DarkHelmet can also sincerely accept such a suggestion. After all, making an enemy to each other is really an unwise behavior, especially, when two people don't even know each other at all.

    2014-02-25 13:38:13 補充:

    We are all here to help (if this is also DarkHelmet's REAL purpose), then WHY wastes our time to have these NON-SENSE verbal fights. Can users really learn ANYTHING from this kind of clash?

    2014-02-25 13:44:14 補充:

    Take this question as an example, after your guys have read the master rjamesho, LionEnglish and AP's answer and opinions.

    2014-02-25 13:45:54 補充:

    Is it justified for DarkHelmet to use "牽強附會 自圓其說 誤導發問者" in the rating for the original question:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    I really wonder who "牽強附會 自圓其說 誤導發問者" is?

    2014-02-25 13:52:01 補充:

    各位若有興趣加入討伐的陣容請過目:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    I just went to see this question. UNFORTUNATELY, it has been removed by the system.

    2014-02-25 13:55:31 補充:

    I wonder whether DarkHelmet can repost this question to let people know what I have done wrong!

    In fact, that question was related to this original question:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    2014-02-25 13:56:56 補充:

    To me, it is matter of personal opinion, not a grammatical issue. You guys don't need to take DarkHelmet or my words for it, please go to that question to judge for yourself.

    2014-02-25 13:58:21 補充:

    I really don't understand why DarkHelmet has to use "討伐" in the statement "各位若有興趣加入討伐的陣容請過目". Isn't that provoking? Is this really for the sake of users' knowledge?

    2014-02-25 14:01:41 補充:

    Is YK+ English forum a "fighting" or "knowledge struggle" (鬥爭) forum?

    2014-02-25 14:08:19 補充:

    This question:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    got removed, it gave me two different interpretations:

    2014-02-25 14:10:25 補充:

    (1) DarkHelmet deserves it, because it is nothing but personal attack.

    (2) One of the users is sick and tired of this kind no merit posting.

    For those who like to see how it got started, please refer to:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    2014-02-25 14:13:07 補充:

    Whether you guys agree or disagree with me, I don't like to waste time in this kind of non-sense verbal fighting. After all, I don't learn anything, but have sore hands from typing. I would like to rest my case right here and right now!

    2014-02-25 15:03:14 補充:

    No tengo ninguna obligación de comprender!

    2014-02-25 15:04:54 補充:

    "DELIBERATELY! INTENTIONALLY! PURPOSELY! " is your own personal opinion, and it is your right! However, I have the right to my own personal understanding whether you agree or not.

    2014-02-25 15:06:22 補充:

    By the way,

    do master rjamesho, LionEnglish and AP agree with your saying in this question?

    I guess NOT!

    2014-02-25 15:08:31 補充:

    You use "Comprende"! Do you want to use ALL Spanish to discuss our issue?

  • 您覺得這個回答如何?您可以登入為回答投票。
  • Louis
    Lv 7
    6 年前

    趙振才<英語常見問題大詞典>p.380

    他把granting that和granted that裡的granting/granted定位為[從屬連接詞],如同assuming that, supposing that, given that, provided that,都是表示讓步關係,並不表示條件。

  • 6 年前

    這些都是說話者的觀點,跟逗點後面的主詞無關。

    2014-02-26 00:12:45 補充:

    DH, 承蒙你瞧得起,成為在被刪的另一題點名四位「眼瞎嗎」之一,我想我有責任回應一下。

    你提的第一題:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    我去看了一下,我在意見 009 說了我的看法,顯然和 DSG 不同。 Prisoner 也在意見 001 說了她的看法,也跟 DSG 不同。Louis 在意見 018 表示贊同 DSG。 我們都提出看法,何以你會認為我們裝瞎呢?

    2014-02-26 00:15:50 補充:

    你提的第二題:

    http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qi...

    我沒看到這題。但 Louis 在意見 002 贊同另一位答覆者,與 DSG 不同。 Louis 何曾裝瞎?

    2014-02-26 00:22:16 補充:

    差別只是,我們的意見針對問題提出看法,目的是希望有助於發問人的學習;我們的目標不是為了指正回答者!

    2014-02-26 00:35:41 補充:

    我是尊重你的,每回看到你那頭盔,知道你的回答絕不會天馬行空!

    但我也尊重 DSG,我向來欣賞 DSG 的客氣與謙沖。

    DSG 回答時,有時多說一些話,我也一樣。 我想出發點不是為了唬弄,是學英語久了,對學習有一套看法。 而這些看法,是一種反思。如同你自己說,大家在一張白紙時,就被台灣英語教育染得鴉鴉黑,一日入了歧途,回頭已是幾十年身!

    DSG 把他反思後的心得,拿來與後進分享,也是好事啊。

    2014-02-26 00:38:09 補充:

    英文版在我看來,大概是知識版上水準最高的版了! 這麼許多英文程度早超過台灣多數「教授」級的人,義務在付出,DSG、Jim、Louis、羅莉、Prisoner..... ,以及像 Kevin, rjamesho.... 那些偶而回答的兄弟姊妹們,人人據個人所知,傾全力在幫助發問人,我們還能要求什麼呢?

  • 6 年前

    To me, "provided/providing", "granted/granting", "assumed/assuming", et al. are the same things, except that the latters are more assumptive.

    That is, to me,

    assuming ... = (if I may have it) assumed...

    I really do not see obvious active/passive taste in them.

還有問題?馬上發問,尋求解答。