日本語訳はとくに準備していない。
[3] Another simple test.
語彙も文意も単純なものに留めてはおり、とりわけ不定詞用法は文意がぼやける恐れがあるため回避している。
しかしながら、論旨を質す設問部においては若干の語彙力と連想力（想像力）を発動必須。
本課題にて勘違いや誤解に陥ることなく正確な論旨理解を貫けるならば、ほとんどの大学入試の英文解釈ごときは十分に対処しきれよう ─ それでも早慶入試の（論理パズル性の高い）英文読解に対処しきれるかどうかは微妙なところではあろうものの。
※ なお、本稿の文責は全て僕個人に帰属するものである。
※※ なおなお、平素の僕自身はほとんど日本語世界で生活しておるため、英語表現に若干の不格好さは見出されるかもしれぬが、もとより自覚の上、いいんだよ俺は英語教育の専門家じゃないんだから。
[1] We are reminded that English is one of the most strict languages with its pronouns' usages. These pronouns can represent various things independently. Those are; 'this' from 'that', 'that' from 'it', 'it' from 'they', etc., and considered as representing each various thing independently.
But, in some cases, the usages of pronouns often appear vague, or even complex, when practically challenged. Let's review this briefly.
==================
Read this following text from paragraph [1] through [6], then answer the accompanying <Questions> hereunder.
"You" or "I"
[1] We are reminded that English is one of the most strict languages with its pronouns' usages. These pronouns can represent various things independently. Those are; 'this' from 'that', 'that' from 'it', 'it' from 'they', etc., and considered as representing each various thing independently.
But, in some cases, the usages of pronouns often appear vague, or even complex, when practically challenged. Let's review this briefly.
==================
[2] Start with simple quiz.
Suppose you receive an invitation letter to a party. At the end of that invitation, there can be a request to choose whether "I will join" or "I will not". Then, "You" will click one of those and somehow return it to the party sponsor.
Who am "I" ? "The party sponsor" or "you" ?
Who am "I" ? "The party sponsor" or "you" ?
An easy question when understanding the context of invitation. It must be "you" who are asked to clarify the joining or not.
==================
[3] Another simple test.
At a fast food restaurant, the sales persons normally ask you whether 'eat here or take away'.
[4] But, we must remember that even the simplest pronouns - namely you or I - do not always share the same meanings between physical dimension against linguistic dimension.
(X1) If I were you, "I" would frequently change "my" account number with passwords, accessing on various Internet shopping sites.
What does this sentence mean ? Our common linguistic senses say "I" recommend "you" to change "your" account number frequently. However, in reality, "I" am not "you", so "I" don't owe any responsibility with "your" securities on there.
(X2) If I were you, "you" would frequently change "your" account number with passwords, accessing on various Internet shopping sites.
Compare (X1) with (X2). Which sounds more reasonable ? Dazzling puzzle ? My personal English literacy recommends (X2) as a reasonable expression.
[6] Additional notes.
[Q4]. In the paragraph [4] through [5], which of the following does this author reminds by quoting physical dimension against linguistic dimension ?
=== end of text ===
Now, here comes a seemingly absurd question. "Who" on earth is questioned to eat foods in the restaurant or take them away ? Those sales persons ? Of course, not. Its "you" as a customer.
This business situation must specify that the sales persons ask "you" whether "they" must bag the foods or not.
I just remember a severe remark of penalty against smoking in Singaporean national taxes . They declare that smoking is severely banned in all transportations, then unexceptional penalties shall be charged to every violation.
"Who" shall pay the penalty if violated ? The taxi or bus drivers ? Of course not.
===============
[4] But, we must remember that even the simplest pronouns - namely you or I - do not always share the same meanings between physical dimension against linguistic dimension.
What are those ? Well, for example, check the following sentence (X1) ;
(X1) If I were you, "I" would frequently change "my" account number with passwords, accessing on various Internet shopping sites.
What does this sentence mean ? Our common linguistic senses say "I" recommend "you" to change "your" account number frequently. However, in reality, "I" am not "you", so "I" don't owe any responsibility with "your" securities on there.
Please hung on. Is this (X1) physically a good sentence ?
Here comes what I tentatively name "you-I-confusion" problem.
==============
[5] For this sentence (X1), the real phase of fact can be that it is "you", not "I", who shall owe the legal responsibility on Internet accesses. Yes, "your" decisions and actions will matter in reality.
[5] For this sentence (X1), the real phase of fact can be that it is "you", not "I", who shall owe the legal responsibility on Internet accesses. Yes, "your" decisions and actions will matter in reality.
Then, the sentence (X1) may as well revised as of the following (X2) ;
(X2) If I were you, "you" would frequently change "your" account number with passwords, accessing on various Internet shopping sites.
Compare (X1) with (X2). Which sounds more reasonable ? Dazzling puzzle ? My personal English literacy recommends (X2) as a reasonable expression.
=================
[6] Additional notes.
Remember that lawyers and accountants, not to mention scientists and engineers, are strictly keen to avoid any confusion in pronouns in their jobs.
Their classic solution to this is establish clear identifications to each entity (client). Practically, they invent such distinctive nouns as "Mr X", "Ms Y", "Alice and Bob team", "the observer and the subject", "the third party", etc., and tag them on to each independent entity.
These are their odd-looking papers of technical memorandum or legal obligations.
===============
<Questions>
[Q1]. The paragraph [1] through [6] goes that the usages of pronouns often appear vague or even complex in linguistic expressions.
<Questions>
[Q1]. The paragraph [1] through [6] goes that the usages of pronouns often appear vague or even complex in linguistic expressions.
Which of the following may represent this problem ?
(1) Reply to the invitation of a party
(2) 'Eat here or take away' inquiry at a fast food restaurant
(2) 'Eat here or take away' inquiry at a fast food restaurant
(3) Penalty system against smoking in vehicles in Singapore
(4) Changing "your" Internet account with passwords
(5) All of the above
===============
(4) Changing "your" Internet account with passwords
(5) All of the above
===============
[Q2]. Which of the following is the 'context' stated in the paragraph [2] ?
(1) All the invited people must join the party.
(2) Each receiver of the invitation letter can clarify if he will join the party or not.
(3) The invitation letter was issued by the sponsor and delivered to himself.
(4) The usage of "you" or "I" is not at all restricted by people who are concerned with the party.
(1) All the invited people must join the party.
(2) Each receiver of the invitation letter can clarify if he will join the party or not.
(3) The invitation letter was issued by the sponsor and delivered to himself.
(4) The usage of "you" or "I" is not at all restricted by people who are concerned with the party.
(5) None of the above
==============
[Q3]. Which of the following is the 'situation' stated in the paragraph [3] ?
(1) Confirmation by the restaurants' sales persons on their food bagging
==============
[Q3]. Which of the following is the 'situation' stated in the paragraph [3] ?
(1) Confirmation by the restaurants' sales persons on their food bagging
(2) Hospitality by the restaurant hoping the customers spend good happy hours in there
(3) Singapore's strict administrative observation against their smoking habits
(4) Singaporean transport systems do not function if the vehicle drivers smoke on duties
(5) None of the above
=================
[Q4]. In the paragraph [4] through [5], which of the following does this author reminds by quoting physical dimension against linguistic dimension ?
(1) Existing people against virtual people
(2) Existing "you" against logical "you"
(3) The Internet complex against the users' accounts
(4) Physical existences against legal responsibilities
(5) None of the above
================
[Q5]. In the paragraph [4] and [5], why can the sentence (X2) be better evaluated than the sentence (X1) ?
(1) Because the sentence (X2) describes the actually responsible decisions and actions by "you" on "your" Internet world
(2) Because the sentence (X2) unifies the word "you" with "your" accounts and passwords, in the right English grammar
(3) Because the sentence (X1) does not actually build logical words, while the sentence (X2) does
(4) Because, in the Internet world, "I" can dynamically replace "you" and change "your" account with passwords at my will
(1) Because the sentence (X2) describes the actually responsible decisions and actions by "you" on "your" Internet world
(2) Because the sentence (X2) unifies the word "you" with "your" accounts and passwords, in the right English grammar
(3) Because the sentence (X1) does not actually build logical words, while the sentence (X2) does
(4) Because, in the Internet world, "I" can dynamically replace "you" and change "your" account with passwords at my will
(5) None of the above
=================
[Q6]. According to the paragraph [6], what can be the technical advantage by assigning tentative Alice-and-Bob like names to certain entities (or clients) ?
(1) Convert those names dynamically in the course of some technical operations
(2) Premise who-is-who distinct identifications in specific papers
(3) Confirm those are just virtual but not real people in businesses
(4) Make puzzles for enhancing the Internet security tests
(5) None of the above
=== end of text ===