时间:2019年11月20日 11:02:54

74. It's not that..., but... 不是因为······而是因为······ 用法透视 这是一个对称句型,表示"不是因为......而是因为......"才干什么。 持范例 1. It's not that I don't like the car, but I think it is too expensive. 不是我不喜欢这辆车,而是它太贵了。 2. It's not that I am unwilling to help you, but I'm tied up with extra work these days. 不是我不愿意帮你,而是因为这段时间我工作太忙了。 3. It's not that he doesn't need your help, but he thinks it will be an inconvenience to you. 不是他不需要你帮忙,而是他怕给你带来麻烦。 会话记忆 A: You have to finish your dinner before you leave the table. 你离开饭桌之前必须把饭吃完。 B: But, Mom, I can't eat anymore. I'm stuffed. 可是妈,我吃不下了,我饱了。 A: What's the matter? It doesn't taste good? 怎么了。不好吃吗? B: It's not that I don't like your cooking, but I ate some cookies before we had dinner. 不是我不喜欢你做的饭,而是我在晚饭前吃了些曲奇 /200705/13465

英语场景口语:笑一笑生活更美好来,我给你拍一张照片,你可是很长时间没拍照了哟。【口语要素1】Let me get a shot of you.站好,保持现在的这个姿势。【口语要素2】Hold that pose.马上要开始照了,你最好笑一笑,否则看起来很死板。【口语要素3】Say cheese.好的,已经拍完了,来看看照片,不错嘛,你很上相。【口语要素4】You are so photogenic.要不要再来拍几张动感的呢?【口语要素5】How about some action shots? /200604/6673

Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.好了,为了回答这个问题,让我们来参照三种不同的辩论方式。The first model, lets call this the dialectical model,第一种模式,让我们称之为辩模式,is that we think of arguments as war, and you know what thats like.这种模式的辩论更想是打仗,相信你们都经历过。Theres a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing,经常充满了尖叫和大喊,而且伴有胜负,and thats not really a very helpful model for arguing这对于辩论来说不是一个很有帮助的方式but its a pretty common and entrenched model for arguing.却也是相当常见且”侵略性“的方式。But theres a second model for arguing: arguments as proofs.这里还有第二种辩论的模式:论式Think of a mathematicians argument.想想数学家的辩论。Heres my argument. Does it work? Is it any good?这是我的辩论方式。它有用吗?有什么优点吗?Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid?我们论时的前提是正确的吗?我们的推论有效吗?Does the conclusion follow from the premises?我们的结论是否由前提推导出来?No opposition, no adversariality, not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.没有对立,没有敌意,辩论并非必须在一个敌对意识下进行。But theres a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful,但是我们还应该注意到其实还有第三种方式,我认为它非常有效,and that is arguments as performances, arguments as being in front of an audience.它就是表演式辩论,如同在观众面前辩论。We can think of a politician trying to present a position,我们可以想想一个政客想要竞选一个职位,trying to convince the audience of something.或尝试去让他的观众接受他的政见。But theres another twist on this model that I really think is important,但是我认为对这个模式的一个曲解有必要指出,namely that when we argue before an audience,亦即当我们在观众面前辩论时,sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument,有些时候观众在辩论中起了更重要的参与作用,that is, arguments are also audiences in front of juries who make a judgment and decide the case.我们的如同面对了一群陪审团,他们判断是非,裁定诉案。Lets call this the rhetorical model,让我们称之为修辞模式,where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.这种模式下你就要像裁缝一样为观众量身定制一场辩论。You know, presenting a sound, well-argued,你要一场听上去激烈讨论,严谨论的tight argument in English before a francophone audience just isnt going to work.英语辩论,而听众是一群法国人,那就是白费力气。So we have these models -- argument as war, argument as proof, and argument as performance.你看我们有这么多辩论模式--战争式辩论,论式辩论,表演式辩论。Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one.在这三种模式中,战争式辩论占了主导。It dominates how we talk about arguments,它使每当我们提起辩论,就是这种模式。it dominates how we think about arguments,这种模式基本代表了我们对辩论的理解,and because of that, it shapes how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments.也因此,它影响了我们辩论的方式,我们在辩论时的表现。Now, when we talk about arguments, yeah, we talk in a very militaristic language.如今当我们谈起辩论,我们就会进入一种军国主义的论调。We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target.我们需要具有攻击性的辩论,辩论时就如同给对手的脸上来上几拳,最好每个论点都直击要害。We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order.我们想把自己武装起来,组织好策略去应对。We want killer arguments.我们想要击败对手。Thats the kind of argument we want.那就是我们想要的辩论。It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.这就是一种主流的辩论观。When Im talking about arguments, thats probably what you thought of, the adversarial model.当我说到辩论的时候,很可能你马上想到的就是敌对模式。But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments,战争模式这个比方,或者说是对辩论模式的认知,has, I think, deforming effects on how we argue.在我看来正在削弱我们的辩论。First it elevates tactics over substance.首先它使辩论的技巧凌驾与观点本身。You can take a class in logic, argumentation.你可以去上关于逻辑与辩论的课程。You learn all about the subterfuges that people use to try and win arguments, the false steps.你可以学到所有人们在辩论中可以使用的诡计,以力求去赢得一场辩论,多么愚蠢的方式啊。It magnifies the us-versus-them aspect of it.这放大了辩论中我们与他们的对立关系。It makes it adversarial. Its polarizing.这使辩论变得敌对。如同以偏振镜来看问题。And the only foreseeable outcomes are triumph, glorious triumph, or abject, ignominious defeat.而唯一可预见的结果就是胜利,一场欢欣鼓舞的胜利,抑或是卑怯,可耻的失败。I think those are deforming effects, and worst of all,我认为那是一种变形效果,最糟的是,it seems to prevent things like negotiation or deliberation or compromise or collaboration.这种变形使这种辩论本身看上去不是那么像谈判,审议或妥协,抑或者是一种协作。201607/453894

Now, Mr Speaker, it has been argued in the debate that airstrikes achieve nothing. Not so.议长先生,刚刚辩论中有人争辩空袭没有作用。并不尽然。Look at how Daesh’s forward march has been halted in Iraq.我们来看看Daesh在伊拉克的前进势头是怎样被阻挡的。The House will remember that, 14 months ago, people were saying: ‘they are almost at the gates of Baghdad’.本院应该还记得,14个月前,人们惊呼:它们已经逼近巴格达了!And that is why we voted to respond to the Iraqi government’s request for help to defeat them.于是,我们投票决定答应伊拉克政府的请求,帮助击败它们。Look at how their military capacity and their freedom of movement has been put under pressure.想知道它们的军事实力和移动自由受到了多大打击吗?Ask the Kurds about Sinjar and Kobani.去问问辛贾尔和科瓦尼的库尔德人吧!Now of course, air strikes alone will not defeat Daesh – but they make a difference.当然当然,仅靠空袭当然不能摧毁达伊沙,但空袭确实奏效!Because they are giving them a hard time – and it is making it more difficult for them to expand their territory.因为空袭会让它们吃尽苦头,会让它们更难以扩张地盘。Now, I share the concerns that have been expressed this evening about potential civilian casualties.我也同意今晚诸位对于平民伤亡所表达出的担心。However, unlike Daesh, none of us today act with the intent to harm civilians.但是,与达伊沙不同,我们没有人希望伤害平民!Rather, we act to protect civilians from Daesh – who target innocent people.相反,我们的行动正是在保护无辜平民免受达伊沙的伤害!Now on the subject of ground troops to defeat Daesh, there’s been much debate about the figure of 70,000 and the government must, I think, better explain that.关于出动地面部队击溃Daesh的问题,辩论焦点集中在7万人的数字上,我认为,政府需要作出更明确的解释。But we know that most of them are currently engaged in fighting President Assad.我们清楚这些人中的大多数正在和阿萨德总统作战。But Ill tell you what else we know, is whatever the number – 70,000,40,000,80,000 – the current size of the opposition forces mean the longer we leave taking action, the longer Daesh will have to decrease that number.然而,我想提醒诸位的是,无论这个数字是7万,4万还是8万,现在的反对派武装人数意味着,我们越晚采取行动,达伊沙就会把这个人数减到越低。And so to suggest, Mr Speaker, that airstrikes should not take place until the Syrian civil war has come to an end is, I think, to miss the urgency of the terrorist threat that Daesh poses to us and others, and I think misunderstands the nature and objectives of the extension to airstrikes that is being proposed.所以,议长先生,那些表示在叙利亚内战结束之前不应进行空袭的意见,在我看来,罔顾了达伊沙带来的恐怖主义威胁的紧迫性,并且误解了计划中空袭的实质和目的。And of course we should take action.我们当然应该采取行动。It is not a contradiction between the two to cut off Daesh’s support in the form of money and fighters and weapons, and of course we should give humanitarian aid, and of course we should offer shelter to more refugees including in this country and yes we should commit to play our full part in helping to rebuild Syria when the war is over.斩断达伊沙获得金钱、战士以及武器的渠道并不矛盾,我们当然应该给予人道主义援助,我们当然应该为包括在英国的叙利亚难民在内的所有难民提供庇护,而且,没错,我们当然应该承诺在战后对叙利亚的重建给予全面帮助。Now I accept that there are legitimate arguments, and we have heard them in the debate, for not taking this form of action now.我承认有人提出了合法性上的担忧,正如我们在辩论中听到的,认为不应该采取军事行动。And it is also clear that many members have wrestled, and who knows, in the time that is left, may still be wrestling, with what the right thing to do is.很明显,很多议员争论的是究竟怎么做才是正确的,而且在剩余的时间里,可能还会继续为此争论。201605/441072

Hi, everybody. Today, I want to talk with you about the crisis in Puerto Rico and why it matters to all of us. Puerto Ricans are American citizens, just like folks in Maine or Oklahoma or New Mexico. And over the last decade, Puerto Rico has suffered through a deep and painful recession – but unlike the rest of the ed States, it hasnt recovered. Today, the island continues to face a crippling economic crisis. Schools are closing. Power is being cut off at homes and hospitals. Teachers have to choose between turning on the lights or turning on the computers. Doctors cant get medicine to treat newborns unless they pay in cash. And as the Zika virus threatens both the island and the mainland, workers dealing with mosquito control to help protect women and their unborn babies are at risk of being laid off. Right now, Puerto Rico is spending about a third of its tax revenue on debt payments – far more than anywhere else in America. And on July 1, the island faces another billion in debt payments that it cannot pay. There is only one way for Puerto Rico to pull itself out of this crisis – and thats by restructuring its debt and finding a sustainable fiscal path toward growth and opportunity for its people. But heres the problem. Right now, Puerto Rico doesnt have the tools it needs to restructure its debt – tools available elsewhere in America. And only Congress can fix the problem, and put Puerto Rico on a path to recovery. Thankfully, this week, the House overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill to address the crisis, and I now urge the Senate to move quickly to follow suit. This bill wont cost federal taxpayers a dime. It doesnt include special-interest bailouts. And it gives Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debt, safeguard essential services, and provide important protections to public pensions that more than 300,000 folks rely on to retire with dignity. This bill also includes something else – a temporary system of oversight to help implement needed reforms and ensure transparency. I know that some folks in Puerto Rico are worried about this kind of oversight. But Ive always insisted that any solution to this crisis has to respect the democratic rights of the people of Puerto Rico. And I am committed to making sure that Puerto Ricans are well-represented in this process, so that we can be sure were taking steps that are in the islands best interests. This bill is not a perfect solution – nobodys saying it is. Thats what happens in divided government. But its the only option on the table to save Puerto Rico from spiraling out of control. And thats exactly what would happen if Congress fails to do its job. Theres no question this is a trying time for folks in Puerto Rico. Theyve seen too many jobs lost and too many neighbors leave in search of better opportunity elsewhere. Its clear that its time for Puerto Rico to chart a new course and make a fresh start. This bill is just a first step. We all have more work to do to make sure that the people of Puerto Rico receive the health care they deserve and the good jobs and economic opportunities they need to build a better future for their kids. And I want the people of Puerto Rico to know that my administration is committed to your success, because youre vital to Americas success. Thats what this is all about. We dont turn our backs on our fellow Americans. We dont treat folks differently because of where they live. Instead, we treat each other as Americans. We come together, especially when its hard. Thats how weve always set ourselves on a course toward a brighter day. Thanks, everybody, and have a great weekend.201606/451746

文章编辑: 求医典范