| 单词 | 相当的 |
| 释义 | 〔aware〕Cognizant is a rather formal equivalent of aware: Cognizant 是一个和aware相当的非常正式的词： 〔highflying〕Rising to a great height.上升到相当的高度〔heavy〕These adjectives mean having a relatively great weight.这些形容词都表示拥有相当的重量。〔unique〕Over the course of the centuryunique has become the paradigmatic example of the class of terms that do not allow comparison or modification by an adverb of degree such as very, somewhat, or quite. Thus, most grammarians believe that it is incorrect to say that something isvery unique or more unique than something else, though phrases such asnearly unique and almost unique are acceptable. In the most recent survey the sentenceHer designs are quite unique in today's fashion scene was unacceptable to 80 percent of the Usage Panel. · Critical objections to the comparison and degree modification of absolute terms date to the 18th centuryand have been applied to a wide group of adjectives includingequal, fatal, omnipotent, parallel, perfect, and unanimous. According to the standard argument, such words denote properties that a thing either does or does not have but cannot have to a qualifiable degree.Thus ifunique is properly used to mean "without equal or equivalent,” something either is unique or it isn't, and phrases such asvery unique and more unique can only betray a weakening of the sense to mean something like "unusual" or "distinctive.” It is true that comparison and modification ofunique are often associated with the style favored by copywriters, as in the advertisement announcing thatOmaha's most unique restaurant is now even more unique or in the claim that a new automobile is So unique, it's patented. But modification ofunique is also found in the work of reputable writers, where it may lack any connotations of hyperbole.A painting is described asthe most unique of Beckman's self-portraits, and a travel writer states thatChicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco. The relative acceptability of these usages reflects the semantic subtlety ofunique itself. If we were to useunique only according to the strictest criteria of logic, after all, we might freely apply the term to anything in the worldsince nothing is wholly equivalent to anything else.Clearly, then, when we say that a restaurant or painting is unique,we mean that it is worthy of inclusion in a class by itself according to certain implicit but generally accepted criteria.Thus a legitimately unique painting might be one that realizes an unparalleled aesthetic vision,but not one that is rendered only in pigments whose names begin with the lettero; and a legitimately unique restaurant might be one that serves 18th-century French cuisine according to the original recipes,not one that has been installed in a converted sardine cannery.Given this understanding, it is not inherently impossible to think of uniqueness as a matter of degree,in the sense that one painting or restaurant may be more or less worthy of inclusion in a class by itself than some other. ·What is troubling about the copywriters' use ofunique is not that the word has become a synonym for unusual. Rather, it is the copywriters who are using the word in conformity with strict logic.Uniqueness is claimed for a restaurant in virtue of some trivial properties of its decor or menu,or for a resort hotel that simply happens to have a singularly picturesque view of the bay.Though it may be true that such properties render these thingslogically unique, they do not constitute legitimate grounds for putting the things into a class by themselves according to the criteria ordinarily invoked when things are sorted into classes.In fact, the abuse ofunique can be cloying even when no modification or comparison is involved; when we read an advertisement for a line of sportswear that featuresa unique selection of colors, we may suspect that the distinctive properties of the color selection are not so remarkable as the advertiser would have us believe. But it is not surprising that these uses ofunique should lend themselves to promiscuous modification and comparison; for once it is granted that uniqueness can be claimed for any product or service that is somehow distinctive from all its competitors,it is inevitable that an increase in uniqueness will be seen in every minor innovation.See Usage Note at equal ,infinite ,parallel ,perfect 在本世纪整个过程中unique 已成为不能由程度副词，例 very、somewhat 或 quite， 比较或修饰的一类术语的例证。 因此，多数语法学家认为说某事是very unique 或 more unique than 是不正确的， 虽然短语例如nearly unique 和 almost unique 是可接受的。 在最近的调查中，句子Her designs are quite unique in today's fashion scene （她的设计在现今流行样式的场面中是很独特的） 对用法专题使用小组的百分之八十成员是不可接受的。 对纯粹术语的比较和程度修饰的主要异议可追述到18世纪，并已广泛用到许多形容词中，包括equal, fatal, omnipotent, parallel, perfect 和 unanimous。 根据标准论据，这些单词表示一事有或没有但不能有可修饰的程度的性质。于是如果unique 适当地用于表示“没有相等或相当的”，则某事是唯一的或不是唯一的， 而短语像very unique 和 more unique 仅能表露出说明某事像“不寻常的”或“独特的”的意义的减弱。 的确，unique 的比较和修饰常与撰稿人喜欢的文体相联系， 如在广告中称Omaha's most unique restaurant is now even more unique（奥马哈城的最独特的餐馆现在甚至是更加独特） 或声称新汽车是 So unique, it's patented（如此独特，它取得了专利权）。 但是unique 的修饰也在著名作家的作品中发现， 那里可能缺乏夸张法的任何涵义。描述一张油画为the most unique of Beckman's self-portraits（最独特的贝克曼的自画像）， 一位旅游作家叙述Chicago is no less unique an American city than New York or San Francisco（芝加哥比纽约或旧金山是不逊独特的美国城市）。 这些用法的相对可接受性反映unique 自身语义的巧妙。 如果我们仅按照逻辑的严格标准使用unique ， 则我们终于会自由地把此术语使用于世界上的任何事，因为没有完全等同于另一事的事。于是，显然当我们说餐馆或油画是独特的时，我们意味着根据某种隐含的但可普遍接受的判据它是值得包含在一个等级内的。于是合理独特的油画可能是实现空前未有的审美型的，而不是仅给予名字以字母O开始的颜料； 合理独特的餐馆可能根据原来的食谱提供18世纪法国菜肴的餐馆，而不是配备转换的沙丁鱼罐头食品的餐馆。按这样了解，将独特性视为程度问题不是本来就不可能的，在这个意义上一张油画或一个餐馆或多或少可能是极好的有价值的内涵物而不是其他。关于撰稿人使用unique 的困惑不是此单词已成为 unusual 的同义词。 相反地，正是撰稿人使用此单词与严密的逻辑相一致。对餐馆声称独特性是由于它的布置或菜单的某些不重要的性质，或者对于人们常去的旅馆仅因为有海湾的独一无二地别致的景象。虽然这样的性质使得这些事logically 独特的可能是真实的， 但是当事情进行了分类，根据平常实行的判据把这些事情自身放到一类，他们不组成正常的基础。事实上unique 的滥用会使人发腻，即使在没有涉及修饰或比较的时候； 当我们读运动服装的unique selection of colors（颜色的独特选择） 的一行广告时， 我们会怀疑颜色选择的独特性质并非广告商希望我们所认为的那么明显。但不必惊讶于unique 的这些用法应当适用于杂乱的修饰和比较； 就这一次可以承认，独特性能用来指任何产品或服务，它们与所有的竞争者相比较有某种程度的特色，在每一小的创新中可以看到独特性的增加是必然会发生的 参见 equal,infinite,parallel,perfect〔becoming〕Appropriate, suitable, or proper.适当的、合适的或相当的〔far〕To, from, or at considerable distance:远处：到、距离或在一个相当的距离：〔chronotherapeutics〕Medical treatment administered according to a schedule that corresponds to a person's daily, monthly, seasonal, or yearly biological clock, in order to maximize the health benefits and minimize adverse effects.生理时钟疗法：依照与一个人每天、每月、每季或每年的生理时钟相当的时刻表，所给予医学的治疗，目的是最益于个人健康并把不利的影响降到最小〔far〕To a considerable degree; much:相当地：到相当的程度；很多：〔month〕A unit of time corresponding approximately to one cycle of the moon's phases, or about 30 days or 4 weeks.月：大约和月亮盈亏的一个周期相当的时间单位，或约三十天或四周〔palmar〕Of, relating to, or corresponding to the palm of the hand or an animal's paw:手掌的：手掌或动物的爪子的，与其有关的，与其相当的：〔billionaire〕A person whose wealth amounts to at least a billion dollars, pounds, or the equivalent in other currency.亿万富翁：财富至少有十亿美元、英镑或与之数量相当的其他货币的人〔pretty〕To a fair degree; moderately:相当地：到了相当的程度；适度地：〔half〕One part approximately equal to the remaining part.半部分：与余下的部分大致相当的部分〔weighty〕Having considerable weight; heavy.See Synonyms at heavy 有相当的重量的；重的 参见 heavy〔octillionth〕One of an octillion equal parts.一个与百万的八次幂相当的部分〔comparative〕Relating to, based on, or involving comparison.比较的；相当的：属于、基于或包括比较的〔centner〕A unit of weight in Germany and Scandinavia corresponding to the hundredweight and equal to 50 kilograms (110.23 pounds).森特纳：使用于德国和斯堪的纳维亚与英担相当的一种重量单位，等于50公斤（110.23磅）〔close〕Decided by a narrow margin; almost even:势均力敌的：为极小界限所决定的；几乎相当的：〔keep〕"The executor . . . is allowed to pay himself first, by retaining in his hands so much as his debt amounts to" (William Blackstone).“遗嘱执行人可以先自己支付，但需在手上保存有与自己的债务相当的钱” （威廉·布莱克斯通）。〔putty〕A substance with a similar consistency or function.油灰状粘性材料：具有相当的坚固性或功能的某种物〔unique〕Without an equal or equivalent; unparalleled.独一无二的：没有相等的或相当的；空前未有的〔competence〕Sufficient means for a comfortable existence.相当的收入：足以过舒适生活的收入〔peer〕A person who has equal standing with another or others, as in rank, class, or age:同辈，同等的人：与他人在如爵位、阶级或年龄上相当的人：〔who〕The traditional rules that determine the use ofwho and whom are relatively simple: who is used for a grammatical subject, where a nominative pronoun such as I or he would be appropriate, andwhom is used elsewhere. Thus, we writeThe actor who played Hamlet was there, sincewho stands for the subject of played Hamlet; andWho do you think is the best candidate? where who stands for the subject of is the best candidate. But we writeTo whom did you give the letter? sincewhom is the object of the preposition to; andThe man whom the papers criticized did not show up, sincewhom is the object of the verb criticized. ? Considerable effort and attention are required to apply the rules correctly in complicated sentences.To produce correctly a sentence such asI met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite, we must anticipate when we writewhom that it will function as the object of the verb extradite, several clauses distant from it.It is thus not surprising that writers from Shakespeare onward should often have interchangedwho and whom. And though the distinction shows no signs of disappearing in formal style,strict adherence to the rules in informal discourse might be taken as evidence that the speaker or writer is paying undue attention to the form of what is said, possibly at the expense of its substance.In speech and informal writingwho tends to predominate over whom; a sentence such asWho did John say he was going to support? will be regarded as quite natural, if strictly incorrect. By contrast, the use ofwhom where who would be required, as inWhom shall I say is calling? may be thought to betray a certain linguistic insecurity. ? When the relative pronoun stands for the object of a preposition that ends a sentence,whom is technically the correct form: the strict grammarian will insist onWhom (not who ) did you give it to? But grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality ofwhom in these cases is at odds with the relative informality associated with the practice of placing the preposition in final position and that the use of who in these cases should be regarded as entirely acceptable. ? The relative pronounwho may be used in restrictive relative clauses, in which case it is not preceded by a comma, or in nonrestrictive clauses, in which case a comma is required.Thus, we may say eitherThe scientist who discovers a cure for cancer will be immortalized, where the clausewho discovers a cure for cancer indicates which scientist will be immortalized, orThe mathematician over there, who solved the four-color theorem, is widely known, where the clausewho solved the four-color theorem adds information about a person already identified by the phrase the mathematician over there. ? Some grammarians have argued that onlywho and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers;it is entirely acceptable to write eitherthe man that wanted to talk to you or the man who wanted to talk to you. ? The grammatical rules governing the use ofwho and whom apply equally to whoever and whomever. See Usage Note at else ,that ,whose 确定用法的传统规则who 和 whom 相对简单： who 语法上用作主语，同 I 或 he 等主格代词的位置相同， 而whom 用于别处。 这样，我们写The actor who played Hamlet was there （演哈姆雷特的演员在那边）， 因此who 代表的是 played Hamlet 的主语。 在句子Who do you think is the best candidate? （你认为谁是最好的候选人?）中 who 代表 is the best candidate 的主语。 但是我们说To whom did you give the letter? （你把信给谁了?）， 因为whom 是介词 to 的宾语； 在句子The man whom the papers criticized did not show up, （报纸上批评的那个人没有来）， 因为whom 是动词 criticized 的宾语 。在复杂的句子里，正确应用这些规则需要相当的努力和注意。正确地造出如I met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite （我遇到了政府曾努力让法国引渡的那个人）这样的句子， 在写whom 之前我们必须预知它将作动词 extradite 的宾语， 尽管两个词离得很远。这也就难怪自莎士比亚以来的作家经常把who 和 whom 交换使用了。 尽管在正式文体中两者区别仍然存在，但如果在非正式的交谈中严格地遵守这些规则会被认为说话者或作者可能不顾内容而过分注视说话的形式。在口语和非正式书面语中，who 趋向于代替 whom; 人们会认为象Who did John say he was going to support? （约翰说他将支持谁?）这样句子很自然，尽管严格来说它是不正确的。 相反，在应该用who 的地方用 whom 则显出一种语言上的不稳定， 如Whom shall I say is calling? （我说是谁在打电话?）。 当关系代词替代句尾的介词宾语时，whom 在理论上是正确的形势： 严格的语法坚持Whom （而不是 who ) did you give it to?（你把它给谁了？） 但从诺·韦伯斯特以来的语法学家认为whom 在这种情况下过分正式，而把介词放在句尾相对来说又不正式，这就有了矛盾，所以在这种情况下用 who 完全可以接受。 关系代词who 可以用在限定关系从句中，前面不要加逗号， 也可用在非限定关系从句中，则需要加逗号。所以我们既可以说The scientist who discovers a cure for cancer will be immortalized （发现治愈癌症的方法的科学家将会因此而不朽）， 在此处从句who discovers a cure for cancer 指这样的科学家将会不朽， 也可以说The mathematician over there, who solved the four-color theorem, is widely known （在那边的数学家非常出名，他解决了四色定理）， 从句who solved the four-color theorem 给已经由短语 the mathematician over there 确定了的人增加了一些有关他的信息。 有些语法学家认为只有who 而不是 that 可以连接表示人的限定性关系从句。 这种限制在逻辑上没有根据，在最优秀作家的用法中也未有根据；无论说the man that wanted to talk to you （想要跟你说话的那个人）或 the man who wanted to talk to you 都是完全可以接受的。 有关who 和 whom 的语法规则同样适用于 whoever 和 whomever 参见 else,that,whose〔high〕 High, the most general term,refers to what rises a considerable distance from a base or is situated at a level well above another level considered as a base: High 是最普通的词，是从基底上升到相当的高度处在高于基底的水平： 〔equal〕Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.相当的：具有与其他事物相同的数量、长度或价值〔materially〕To a significant extent or degree; substantially.极大的，相当的：达到相当大的范围或程度；相当可观地〔equivalent〕Being essentially equal, all things considered:相当的：总体来说实质相同的：〔comparable〕pianists of comparable ability.能力相当的钢琴家 |
| 随便看 |
英汉汉英双解词典收录301015条英汉双解翻译词条，可根据汉字查询相应的英文词汇，基本涵盖了全部常用汉字的英文读音、翻译及用法，是英语学习及翻译工作的有利工具。