The Teacher 在最近的一篇網誌中,提到 reconsider 一字,忽爾令栗子妹想起英語中一個陰險的字首:in-。
in- 解作「不」,與 il-、im- 和ir- 同義,例如:capable (能夠) <--> incapable (不能),logical (合理) <--> illogical (不合理),possible (可能) <--> impossible (不可能),responsible (負責任) <--> irresponsible (不負責任)。
這個規則本來頗易理解,偏英文有些以 in 起首的生字,與「不」字半點關連也沒有。譬如 flammable 解作「易燃」,而 inflammable 也是解作「易燃」!另外 valuable 與 invaluable 同義,解作「珍貴」。如果大家只記著「不」字規,憑字首猜字義,便很容易中伏了。
其他例子:
inborn (先天的)
inbred (近親繁殖的)
inbuilt (本質的)
indifferent (漠不關心)
infamous (臭名遠播)
ingrained (根深蒂固的) [蒂字有待高人指路......]
ingrowing (向內生長的)
inlaid (嵌飾的)
inset (嵌入)
--------------------------------------------
相關網誌:凡字並非皆「可能」
How about "fat chance" meaning the same as "slim chance"?
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/31/2008 12:26:00] I love your example, Teach!
以上例子,除 incapable, indifferent 之外,多少帶有“within itself”的意味。正是很多“陷阱”才令語言背後的精彩文化。若一種語言可以機械地運用,那就太乏味了。
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/31/2008 12:32:00] 乏言先生說得好!如果只需一套規則,便可世界通行,語文便太過乏味了。
只不過呢,當學生問起時,我又恨不得語言真可機械地運用,以免被他們煩個不休
真係多謝栗妹的分享啊 !
回覆刪除印象中 ,根深"蒂"固是錯的 ?根深"柢"(讀音為底)固才是正確的,是不?如有錯誤,請指正啊 !
[版主回覆10/31/2008 12:24:00]Nicole: 謝謝提點!
上次我問過朋友,他說正字該為「柢」。但很奇怪,我查了幾本中文字典和英漢字典,全部寫作「蒂」。讓我再問問高人,稍後回覆
inbred跟字頭in-無關,因為它是跟outbred相對的。
回覆刪除infamous也沒問題呀,「名譽」的相反就是臭名遠播嘛。
[版主回覆10/31/2008 12:36:00]1. 謝大人提點!我竟然忘了 in 與 out 這組詞呢!
2. famous 一般譯作「著名的」,fame 才是「名譽」吧?
其實 famous 跟 infamous 同樣是「出名」,不過一個出好名,一個出臭名。
真係好喇,有blog主講解英文,令在下可以理解多d英文字啦!正!
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/31/2008 12:36:00]讓井兄見笑了
我個女成日叫我做人要「in」0的,唔好成日都咁「out」,原來 in- 解作「不」, ,佢梗係暗示問我攞零用錢時唔好say no喇!
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/31/2008 12:38:00]嘩,南爾的女兒才讀小學吧?竟然咁 in?那南爾下次給零用錢時,記得手鬆啲啦
真係獲益良多 。
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/31/2008 12:38:00]栗妺獻醜了
Here's another oddity: The words "terrible" and "terrific" must have the same root, I presume, but one is highly negative while the other is highly positive.
回覆刪除[版主回覆11/02/2008 16:38:00]Dear Teach: I thought 'terrific' carried negative meaning in the past. However, as people like to 講反話, the meaning of the word swings from one end to the other.
So my assumption is wrong?
Well, the word "terrific" has not been anything other than a highly positive word for at least the last 40 years, so if it was a matter of 講反話 , it had to be well before that.
回覆刪除[版主回覆11/04/2008 21:08:00]Wow! 40 years already! Thanks for the info, Teach.