笔记(共28篇)
-
Tracy-
-
用户827686
“This system, which is at present best preserved in...” 全部笔记(1) 去书内
这段文字是**历史比较语言学**视角下的典型论述,核心是梳理某一语法系统在印欧语系内部的演变脉络。 从内容逻辑来看,作者先点明该语法系统**现存最完整的载体是立陶宛语**,再指出其在古日耳曼语中已大幅简化——印欧语系原本的七种格(主格、属格、与格、宾格、夺格、方位格、工具格)缩减为四种(主格、属格、与格、宾格)。最后,作者补充了结论的依据:对最古老的日耳曼语方言进行严谨的对比与构拟,以此增强论述的可信度。 这段文字的特点在于**以语言演变的时空差异为线索**,借助“现存形式—古代形式”的对照、“原数量—缩减后数量”的量化说明,清晰呈现语法现象的演变轨迹,同时体现了历史比较语言学“以今证古、以同源语言互证”的研究方法。
-
用户827686
“? If we eliminate the fourth factor from the interrogative...” 全部笔记(1) 去书内
这句话是一段**结合具体语言实例的实证分析**,核心是探讨影响英语疑问代词 *whom* 与 *who* 选用的语音因素。 从论证逻辑来看,作者先提出假设——剔除疑问用法里的第四个影响因素,再以 **Whom are you looking at?** 为例,指出 *whom* 后接的元音弱化了它的语音负担;接着基于这个实例推导结论:这种情况下人们使用 *whom的抵触感会降低。最后又补充 **Who are you looking at?与 Who did you see 的对比,说明习惯用 Who did you see 的人,可能会觉得前一句的 who 用法略显不妥,以此佐证语音因素对代词选用的实际影响。 这段分析的亮点在于用具体例句支撑抽象的语言规则,避免了纯理论的空洞讨论,同时通过“if I am not mistaken”这样的表述,体现了学术论证的严谨性。
-
用户827686
“The analysis is certain to be unconscious, or rather unknown,...” 全部笔记(1) 去书内
这句话是语言学研究中关于语言分析有效性的思辨性表述,逻辑严谨且直击核心问题。 从结构上看,前半句以 “unconscious, or rather unknown” 补充说明,精准点出普通语言使用者对自身语言的内在机制并无察觉**这一前提;后半句则通过设问,抛出了该领域的关键难题——在对语言现象进行归因分析时,如何确保所罗列的所有决定因素都真实发挥作用,而非仅有其中某一项在起效果。 从表意价值上看,它揭示了语言学研究的一大痛点:语言使用者的“无意识”,使得研究者的分析很容易陷入主观归因的误区,也为后续探讨分析方法的科学性(如实证验证、多维度佐证等)埋下了伏笔
-
用户823522
“The mistake must not be made of identifying our conventional...” 全部笔记(1) 去书内
The mistake must not be made of identifying our conventional interjections (our oh! and ah! and sh!) with the instinctive cries themselves. These interjections are merely conventional fixations of the natural sounds. They therefore differ widely in various languages in accordance with the specific phonetic genius of each of these. As such they may be considered an integral portion of speech, in the properly cultural sense of the term, being no more identical with the instinctive cries themselves than such words as “cuckoo” and “kill-
-
薏米yi.
-
y.y
“It would throw together languages that differ utterly in...” 全部笔记(1) 去书内
It would throw together languages that differ utterly in spirit merely because of a certain external formal resemblance. There is clearly a world of difference between a prefixing language like Cambodgian, which limits itself, so far as its prefixes (and infixes) are concerned, to the expression of derivational concepts, and the Bantu languages, in which the prefixed elements have a far-reaching significance as symbols of syntactic relations.
-
y.y
-
y.y
-
y.y

京公网安备 11010802032529号