>>137 それ有名だよね。 アメリカは日本と違って訛を貶めないし、むしろ個性なので、 直す必要がない。 外務(国務)大臣という、英語の微妙なニュアンスが最高に大事な仕事を、 アメリカ史上間違いなくOne of the bestというレベルでこなした人間の 英語をつかまえてあれこれ言うとは…
139 :
もちろん語や表現の選択等に拙劣な点があったなんて言ってないし 発音が最重要事項でもないのは当たり前。 でも発音は「通じさえすればよい」というものではないよ。 発音やイントネーションも含めて微妙なニュアンスを表現するのが言語だろ。 外交という実務ではそういった要素が少ないので問題にならなかったということ。 >アメリカ史上間違いなくOne of the bestというレベルでこなした人間の 間違いなく?人によって評価は大きく異なるよ。 ヒント:ノーベル平和賞選考委員が2名辞任
140 :
>>139 >外交という実務ではそういった要素が少ないので問題にならなかった I'm curious. What's more important than "expressing subtle nuances in language" in international diplomacy? >間違いなく?人によって評価は大きく異なるよ。 I said, "One" of the best. Yes. People have opinions. But I'm pretty darn sure most people agree he is one of the most famous, and not for a bad cause. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.
141 :
>発音は「通じさえすればよい」というものではない >微妙なニュアンスを表現するのが言語だろ。 If you couldn't "express your nuances", you didn't get your point across. Did you? But then, you need to be able to speak "reasonably" native-like. Yes. I agree on that. But Picking on Kissinger? You've got be kidding me.
142 :
ピントがずれてるよ。 1つだけ言うと、bad causeで十分有名だよ。
143 :
So what "bad cause" and what "focus" were you trying to make a point on?
144 :
And you have'nt answered my question yet. "The focus is off" isn't nearly an intelligent quip. Do you think so? What's more important than "expressing subtle nuances in language" in international diplomacy?
145 :
>>144 なんか気になる文章だなあ・・・ >"The focus is off" isn't nearly an intelligent quip. Do you think so? 前の文章がisn'tと否定形だからといって、反語疑問文を肯定形で書くのは滅多に無いぞ。 普通、"The focus is off is hardly an intelligent quip, don't you think so? じゃ無いの?反語疑問文だけ別の分というのもなんかちょっと不自然。 >What's more important than "expressing subtle nuances in language" in a languageかin the languageかin languagesか、とにかく単数形には普通、冠詞をつけるだろ?
146 :
わかった。わかった。日本語で勘弁してね。みなさま、スレ違い失礼します。これで終わりにします。 キッシンジャーとニクソンの外交は人権抑圧政権の支援など国益優先の不道徳性で有名。 国益優先は外交においてはアリかもしれないがそこは人によって 大きく価値判断が分かれるところでしょう。 ニクソンと一緒に北爆を決めたことも有名。 これは国益の観点からも結局良くなかったんじゃないかな。 非常に知名度が高いのは間違いないが、one of the best というような 肯定的な評価が「間違いな」いわけではない。one of the worst かもしれない。 ノーベル平和賞の選考委員2人は彼の受賞が決まったことに対する 抗議の意思表示で辞任した。 間違いなくone of the bestなら多少意見は違っても辞任まではしないんじゃないかな。 外交で言葉のニュアンスというものすべてが重要でないなんて言ってないよ。 あくまで発音やイントネーションに込められたニュアンス、 それもネイティブでなければ分からないような微妙なものについては 実務的な交渉ではあまり問題にならないといってるだけ。 それに通訳を介すとなればなおさら。
147 :
>>145 OK. You speak better English than me. Ooops, sooory, "than I". Anyways, what's more important than "expressing subtle nuances in language" in international diplomacy? And what is your "focus"?
148 :
>>146 For an AMERICAN diplomat, isn't AMERICA'S benefit surmount to anything else? And didn't he achieve that by his ENGLISH skill? I'm not saying he's Gandhi or Budda, I was meary saying he's one of the best "AMERICAN" diplomats. Who cares Gaddafi doesn't agree with it. I'm not getting it. What's your point?
149 :
oops, sorry again. English skill(s). Easy to make a typo when you had a couple of bottles of wines :P
150 :
また1人でw
151 :
え?
152 :
>>147 Dude, I have not been following the conversation. I just noticed some awkwardness in your comment. Though I do happen to have an MA in political science... ...so, after reading (okay, skimming, I don't have the patience to read every line) some of the above arguments, I would say that the nuances are lost, often times, in diplomatic discussions. True, they often discuss the wording of a treaty or an agreement for hours on end, but they would often have advisers on hand to help them with the subtle nuances. Take most of the minister for foreign affairs from Japan, most of them don't speak English but they get along fine (at least, I hope that is the case). And if they are making bad diplomatic decisions, often times it has little to do with linguistic skills. As for Kissinger, well, it depends on whether you ask a Democrat or a Republican. America is truly torn along party lines these days.
What are you doing on the English board then? Hell, why did you even take the TOEIC? People can easily tell that your English is native level if you're a real bilingual. The TOEIC is only good for measuring the lower end of the English ability spectrum.
156 :
日本の企業ってバイリンガルでも採用条件としてTOEIC最低必要点数とかあるから 受けたんですよ。先ず書類審査だと「バイリンガルです」って書いてもだめでしょ? In fact, I found the exam rather boring. I would rather spend time on facebook chatting with my American friends.
157 :
>>156 えっ、そうなの?全然知らなかった。 English was one of my better subjects in Highschool(US) so I don't think I'll have much of a problem with the TOEIC, but that's a rather annoying requirement, then.
158 :
>>157 I think it depends on the field of job as well. If you are an engineer or a doctor, it probably won't matter.
159 :
>>152 Sounds like you just wanted to take about grammar eh? OK. >反語疑問文を肯定形で書くのは滅多に無いぞ。 Wrong. First off, it is not a 反語疑問文. And making it so would sound more like you are expecting a "Yes". That's all. I wasn't expecting a "yes" that's probably why I used positive subconsciously. There is nothing wrong with using a positive form. >反語疑問文だけ別の分というのもなんかちょっと不自然。 You often see a comma there in this kind of colloquial writings, but they are independent clauses without a conjunction, so it's actually a better grammar to use a period. Go look up "comma splice".
As for Kissinger, I don't know why English skills of Japanese bureaucrats have anything to do with this. We are talking about ENGLISH skills of an AMERICAN politician. It should be more like Japanese skills of Koizumi. And if Japanese learners, people who are learning Japanese, were picking on, say, Aso's Japanese, I would probably find it funny too. Whether or not Kissinge r is "the" best secretary of state or "arguably the most influential" is irrelevant. We aren't talking politics. We are talking language skills. Aren't we?(Hint hint. Now I'm expecting a yes. Or, should I go as far as saying " Are we not?") Tell me, what part of this interview here makes you think "the nuances are lost" due to his, or lack thereof, English skills? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUSMR0cQqRw How about the skills of the guy with the Indian accent?
160 :
Forgot to comment on this. >in a languageかin the languageかin languagesか、とにかく単数形には普通、冠詞をつけるだろ? In a language, in the language, in language, they all have different meanings, and none of them are incorrect. Your English is really good, one of the best I have ever seen on this board, but your usage of singular/plural, along with other things, is peculiar enough I can tell you didn't grow up in an English speaking country. Maybe several years, but not entirely. Did you get your Master's in the states or in Japan?
161 :
>>159 "Take about grammar?" I have never heard that expression before! I said your use of the positive (as a separate sentence) after a negative statement was "unusual"(滅多に無い) but I never said it was incorrect. As for comma splice, IT IS NOT ALWAYS WRONG. Or at least, that's the first thing I see when I google it, following your advice. ttp://grammartips.homestead.com/splice.html And section 2 of this page below shows that in cases like the one under discussion, it is perfectly okay (and I would therefore question your claim that it is better grammatically to separate the sentences). ttp://grammartips.homestead.com/spliceok.html Though the pages also say that many English teachers do in fact believe that comma splices are always wrong... such an unfortunate error... Now, Kissinger, if he were talking to people outside the US, whatever nuance would be lost to non-English speakers in translation. If you were talking about him in regards to the American public, sure, his nuances would matter, but that would have nothing to do with the use of language in diplomacy. Because when he is talking to the domestic public, he is not engaged in international diplomacy. >>160 Once again, I never said it was incorrect, just uncommon. I got my two MA degrees in America.
162 :
>>161 umm. Yeah, it was supposed to be "talk about". Then you wrote, "別の分". Do you want to have a somewhat intelligent conversation or is picking on typos more of your cup of tea? I'm starting to get the impression you are the later and honestly I really don't care for these people. >I said your use of the positive (as a separate sentence) >after a negative statement was "unusual"(滅多に無い) but I never said it was incorrect. Why do you bother pointing out. It was just one of these cases and was legit. Or WAS IT NOT? > IT IS NOT ALWAYS WRONG. You are correct. It is not always wrong. It's just YOU are the one who thought the right way was unusual. And I gave you a break too. It's probably more common on the internet to use a comma. So can we drop this? Or do you really insist? >>160 >Once again, I never said it was incorrect, just uncommon. >I got my two MA degrees in America. I insist it is common. As I said, in the language, in a language and in language all have different meanings. You don't use an article when you are talking about a means/function of something. For example, you CAN say "as a president of the United States" or "as the president of the United States" but usually a president says "as president of the United States" without an article. Just send this thread to your American friends from college (hint hint, no article again) and ask them. It'll save us the hassle.
163 :
And if I remember correctly, the focus or ピント of the discussion was Kissinger's English skills. What did you think of this vidio? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUSMR0cQqRw Do you think his English, not his policy, leaves a room for criticizm? If they do, what is it? How about the skills of the guy with the Indian accent?
164 :
I was debating your statement, "What's more important than "expressing subtle nuances in language" in international diplomacy?" I am sure Kissinger speaks English well enough, I never argued that point. You asked me the question above, so I replied to just that, that is all. Maybe I am missing the full scale of the previous discussion, since I merely skimmed through them. Since even native speakers hotly debate spliced commas, we can totally drop it, no problem. As for what you call typo in my Japanese, 2ちゃんって誤変換も(サブカル)文化じゃないのw? In regards to whether I am simply nitpicking or discussing grammar, I would say I am in the middle - I think clarity of the sentence is important, and awkward sentences, even when grammatically correct, should be avoided. Thus my statement and recommended sentence in >>145. I just thought your initial sentence was funny (or that it was some expression in non-American English). Did you grow up in an English speaking country? And I am starting to wonder if we are annoying all the non-帰国 on this thread...
165 :
>>164 OK. You insist. >反語疑問文を肯定形で書くのは滅多に無いぞ。 I proved it wrong already. If you think otherwise, tell us what you think of it now. Do you still think it's weird? >in a languageかin the languageかin languagesか、とにかく単数形には普通、冠詞をつけるだろ? Again. You use the articles in a very peculiar way. Actually, It was a dead giveaway you didn't grow up in the states. Objections? > 2ちゃんって誤変換も(サブカル)文化じゃないのw? I've never heard of a sub-culture in which you intentionally use 分 in place of 文. Have you ? >I think clarity of the sentence is important, and awkward sentences, even when grammatically correct, >should be avoided. I totally agree. And sorry. I tried not to say this but your English is awkward enough I could tell you are not a native speaker. Did you send the link to your friends? What did they have to say? AND you still have a homework. Tell me, what part of this interview here makes you think "the nuances are lost" due to, or lack of, his English skills? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUSMR0cQqRw How about the skills of the guy with the Indian accent? What is you focus or ピント in this discussion?
166 :
>>165 >Do you still think it's weird? I still think it is rare and certainly less common than the negative following a positive. >Actually, It was a dead giveaway you didn't grow up in the states. Objections? Factually, yes, since I did grow up in the states. >I've never heard of a sub-culture in which you intentionally use 分 in place of 文. Have you ? 「2チャンネルにおいて漢字は誤変換を含めて完全に表音記号と化してます。」 今は亡きサブカル雑誌BGeeks創刊号より。 >Did you send the link to your friends? What did they have to say? Which links? The ones about spliced commas? As for the youtube video, the recorded sound is so low in volume that I can hardly hear anything. Maybe it has to do with the audio setting on my computer. And I don't know why you care so much. I never got into the debate of accents. You simply asked me earlier whether I thought nuances matter in international diplomacy, to which I already replied. If my writing is correct but awkward, that's probably just me being weird. Please feel free to recommend suggestions for improvements.
167 :
>>166 >I still think it is rare and certainly less common than the negative following a positive. OK. Please show me it is a commonly shared idea among most English speakers. >Factually, yes, since I did grow up in the states. Really. I might have been wrong if that was the case. But I said "maybe several years, but not entirely". RIght? I still don't think you were born and got all your education here. Have you? >2チャンネルにおいて漢字は誤変換を含めて完全に表音記号と化してます。」 >今は亡きサブカル雑誌BGeeks創刊号より Yes, when you say すくつ instead of そうくつ, THAT is a sub-culture. But in which board is it a standard practice to use 分 instead of 文? >Which links? The ones about spliced commas? No. The link to THIS thread. What do your friends think? >the recorded sound is so low in volume that I can hardly hear anything. ummm. No. The volume is OK. Have you ever used Youtube before? >Maybe it has to do with the audio setting on my computer Yes. >And I don't know why you care so much. Because that was the "focus" of the original discussion on which you jumped.
168 :
>If my writing is correct but awkward, that's probably just me being weird. Please feel free to recommend suggestions for improvements. Probably it's just your idiosyncrasy. But let me remind you that YOU are the one who started saying MY English is awkward, and I've proved all your points wrong. (You are welcome to express your opinions. But please be rational.) If you have to know, as I said, your usage of plural/singular is a bit peculiar. And you "believed" that "単数形には普通、冠詞をつけるだろ?", and I could tell you think that way even before you said it. "Expressing oneself in language" is a totally normal (American) English expression like "As president of the United States". On top of that, "most of the minister for foreign affairs"? from a person who grew up in the states and has a Master's in political science and a heritage in Japan? No, that's just too unlikely. At least that's what I thought. Again, your English is one of the best on this board. I said that already. So peace. I understand that "you" thought, from your experience, which is probably far more comprehensive compared to the ones of most people here, my English is weired. But you still haven't proved your points. In fact, I don't even know what your point is. If you have anything you want to say, just concentrate on it. I'll listen. But I'm not really intrested in picking on someone's English. Be it mine or yours.
169 :
My point? You are being awfully judgmental about others, claiming I did not grow up in America. Where in America did you grow up? En Los Angeles, la mayoría de mis amigos hablaban español, esse. So si, I grew up en la states, and got my MA (actually two of them). If I had typed "most of the minister" then I just missed the s. It's a typo. I could just as easily nitpick on your typos. So stop acting in a condescending manner as if you were the ultimate authority on English. The point is you are pissing me off (and this conversation is probably doing the same to others reading this thread).
170 :
>>169 >You are being awfully judgmental about others, claiming I did not grow up in America. That's not "others". That's "another". And let me say this again. I'm not the one who started saying someone's English is awkward. You are. And you couldn't prove your points yet. And please don't throw in Spanish. It can't be more irelavant. Though I think it's kind of cool, hehe. And no. Not just the "s". It's The minister"s" "of" foreign affairs. Really? were you born in the states and you went through all 12 grades and the collage and the graduate school? I don't think so. Did you?
171 :
Do you really speak Spanish, I mean fluently, by the way?
172 :
¡Chinga a tu madre!
173 :
eh... I see. You are very angry. I'll leave you alone.
>>145 >なんか気になる文章だなあ・・・ >>"The focus is off" isn't nearly an intelligent quip. Do you think so? >前の文章がisn'tと否定形だからといって、反語疑問文を肯定形で書くのは滅多に無いぞ。 >普通、"The focus is off is hardly an intelligent quip, don't you think so? >じゃ無いの?反語疑問文だけ別の分というのもなんかちょっと不自然。 >>What's more important than "expressing subtle nuances in language" >in a languageかin the languageかin languagesか、とにかく単数形には普通、冠詞をつけるだろ? これが「珍しいといってるだけ」と読めるとしたら、凄い日本語の 読解力だと思う。結局3点とも否定されたわけだし。
>>270 選択式じゃなくて自由に空欄を埋めさせる問題で、 He ( ) his leg. で、broke 以外の単語を入れると間違いとか、 She has ( ) her dinner. で、eaten 以外の単語を入れると間違いって奴だよね。 意味が通じれば正解でも良いはずなのに、 教えてない単語を使って生意気って思われるんだろうね。