| 单词 | 逻辑上 |
| 释义 | 〔consequence〕Something that logically or naturally follows from an action or condition.See Synonyms at effect 结果：一种行为或情况在逻辑上或自然而然产生的结果 参见 effect〔anacoluthon〕from Late Greek anakolouthon [inconsistency in logic] 源自 后期希腊语 anakolouthon [逻辑上不一致] 〔minimal〕Under the strict interpretation ofminimal, this sentence should mean only "Alcohol has an unpleasant effect when I have eaten nothing.”If the looser interpretation is allowed, however,the sentence can also mean “ . . . when I have eaten a bit.”Presented with the sentence, 29 percent of the Usage Panel said that it could have only the "eaten nothing" (that is, the strict) interpretation;34 percent said that it could have only the "eaten a bit" (that is, the looser) interpretation;and 37 percent said that it could have either meaning.Thus the looser sense ofminimal is accepted by 71 percent of the Panel and must be considered acceptable in nontechnical use. · In an analogous shift,the verbminimize is often used to mean "to reduce,” an extension of its strict etymological sense of "to reduce to the smallest possible level.”This looser usage is the result of the imprecision that usually attaches to the use of the verb in most nontechnical contexts.When a manager announces thatThe company wants to minimize the risk of accidents to line workers, we naturally interpret the manager as meaning that the risk is to be reduced to the smallest level consistent with considerations of efficiency and cost,not that risks are to be reduced to the lowest level logically possible.Even when used with allowable imprecision, however, the verbminimize should carry some implication that the relevant quantity is reduced as much as could reasonably be expected in the circumstances.Thusminimize retains at least an approximately superlative sense and so is inconsistent with modification by adverbs such asgreatly or considerably, which imply that the verb is being used as a simple synonym forlessen or reduce. 若句中的minimal 的意思比较严格， 那么这一句就只能理解为“当我什么没吃时喝酒会搞得我很难受。”但是如果比较宽泛的词义得到承认，那么这一句同时也有“…当我吃过一点东西时”这层意思。百分之二十九的用法专题使用小组成员认为这一词只能当“什么都不吃”（即严格意义上的词义）来讲；百分之三十四的成员说它只有“吃过一点”（即宽泛一些的）词义；百分之三十七的成员说两种含义都可适用。所以minimal 宽泛的含义被用法专题使用小组的百分之七十一的成员接受。 与其相类似的是，动词minimize 经常被用来指“减少”， 是其“减少到最可能小的水平”的严格意义上的延伸。这一较宽泛的含义是非技术性文章使用这一动词的不精确性而带来的结果。当一个经理宣称公司试图将生产线上工人面临出事故的风险降至最低， 我们自然会认为经理的意思是工厂的事故风险将被降至一个同时又考虑效率和成本的最小程度，而不是逻辑上可以达到的最低程度。即使在可以允许不精确的程度内使用时，动词mininize 也应有一层隐含的意思， 即其相对数量已被减少到了情况所期望的合理的程度。这样，minimize 至少仍然保留着一种大致为最高级的意思， 因而它与这些副词如greatly 或 considerably 不能搭配使用， 因为这些副词暗示着这一动词被当成了lessen 或 reduce 简单同义词而使用 〔subsist〕To be logically conceivable.（逻辑上）可以理解〔valid〕Correctly inferred or deduced from a premise:逻辑上真实的：从前提正确地推断或演绎的：〔consequence〕A logical conclusion or inference.推论：逻辑上的结论或推论〔synthesis〕Reasoning from the general to the particular; logical deduction.综合推理，演绎推理：从一般到特殊的推理；逻辑上的演绎推理〔equiprobable〕Having equal mathematical or logical probability.数学或逻辑上概率相同的〔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〔analytic〕an analytic truth.逻辑上必然的真理〔consistency〕Agreement or logical coherence among things or parts:连贯：各事物或各部分之间的一致性或逻辑上的连贯性：〔unsound〕Not true or logically valid; fallacious:不精确的：不真实的或逻辑上站不住脚的；错误的：〔consequent〕Logically correct or consistent.合乎逻辑的：逻辑上正确或一致的〔help〕Some grammarians condemn this usageon the ground thathelp in this sense means "avoid" and logically requires a negative.But the expression is a well-established idiom.See Usage Note at cannot 有些语法家对这种用法提出了批评意见，理由是help 在这个句子里表示“避免”的意思， 所以从逻辑上讲应用否定形式。但是这种表达已经成为一种被广泛接受的惯用法了 参见 cannot〔necessary〕Logically inevitable.必然的：逻辑上不可避免的〔halt〕To be defective or proceed poorly, as in the development of an argument in logic or in the rhythmic structure of verse.有缺陷：有缺陷或不流畅，比如阐发观点时在逻辑上或是在诗文的韵律结构上〔cannot〕rather, it means "Brian appears to be unable to get angry.”But the idiom serves a useful purpose,since the syntax of English does not allow a logical equivalentlikeBrian seems to cannot . . . ; and thecannot seem to construction is so widely used that it would be pedantic to object to it. See Usage Note at but ,care ,help 而是表示“布赖恩看上去无法动怒”。但这个习语是有意义的，因为英语的句法不能容许其逻辑上的对应物，如Brian seems to cannot… ； 而且cannot seem to 这一结构是如此广泛地被使用以至于若反对它就太学究气了 参见 but,care,help |
| 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。