關於 although though用法 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

毋忘五大訴求　公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）

——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。

暴力之濫觴

　　在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！

　　在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？

社會之病根

　　對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。

如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。

堅持之重要

　　大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。

　　法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。

　　最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）

　　願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！

第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日

Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)

Your Honour Judge Woodcock

In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.

The roots of violence

At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!

In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?

The roots of society's problems

From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.

The importance of persistence

As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.

Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.

Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."

Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!

The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021

大家好，
在這個貼文中，我會與大家分享我個人對於「學習文法專有名詞」的想法，尤其會分享學文法要不要去「記文法專有名詞」還有「鑽研五大句型」的個人想法。

首先我要先通知各位「基礎英文第一課的課程」內容有所更新。我更新了的裡面的「八大詞性」課程。我後來覺得我之前做的「八大詞性課程」有點太難，所以決定重做一個簡單一點的版本，但是還是會保留舊的八大詞性給已經有接觸英文的學員。並且改名為「英文基本概念（上）跟（下）」共兩個影片。零基礎學員只要看新版的就可以了。我開放「英文基本概念（上）」為免費預覽影片，所以大家都可以前往觀看喔！

當你在學習文法時候，無可避免的，你會接觸到許多文法專有名詞。每一個字都有它的專有名詞，有時候它還不只有一種專有名詞（像是 be動詞可以是「連綴動詞」也可以是「助動詞」）。但是我真的覺得您只要知道那些最基本的就可以了，我會在接下來內容中舉例說明。這也是為什麼我重新製作一個新的「八大詞性」影片，因為我希望可以盡量減少文法專有名詞的提及，盡量把這些觀念給簡化再簡化，讓它變得易懂。最終，你們會使用那些「字」跟那些「句型」才是最重要的事情。就像是我們要學會開車，我們並不用去瞭解車子裡面的每個零件名稱才會開，也不用去了解一台汽車會動的原理是什麼（謝天謝地）。會操作汽車，懂得並且遵守交通規則才是最重要的事情。有這些知識就夠了！

鑽研文法專有名詞對於某些人而言，是非常有趣的。那適合非常熱愛語言學或是文法的人去鑽研。但是如果只要活用的話（包括考試），完全沒有這個必要。

英文要學習的是如何使用「字」跟「句型」。許多字都有它特殊的用法，我們必須一個一個去熟悉他們。好消息是，那些特殊用法的字是一群一群的，你會使用了一個，你可以此類推，學會活用其他一樣種類的字。

舉例：smell 是動詞。它是「連綴動詞」。你無需去了解它是一個不及物動詞，它後面需要加上補語。「連綴動詞」的特性是後面可以加上形容詞（大部分的動詞後面不可以加上形容詞）。但是剛剛講的這些都沒有必要去記或是知道。

你只需要知道smell（聞起來） 後面可以直接加上形容詞。一樣用法的字有look（看起來）/taste（嚐起來）/feel（感覺起來）等。你要去學習這些感官上的體驗的動詞，他們中文都有「…起來」的意思，後面都可以加上形容詞。所以你可以看例句並且造句練習來學習。It smells good（它聞起來好香）. You look tired（你看起來累了）. It tastes delicious（它嚐起來美味）. We feel disappointed. （我們感覺失望的）. 這樣的學習是不是比較簡單易懂呢！

最好的證明就是受全世界英文老師及學生歡迎的英文文法書「劍橋活用英文文法-初級」跟「劍橋活用英文文法-中級」這兩本文法書是這個出版社的大紅牌。我曾經在布達佩斯的電車上，看到有人在讀這本文法書，感覺特別親切（我心想：Hey!我們雖然國籍不同，但是都是讀同一本英文文法書耶！）。我教這兩本書多年，深愛這兩本書。教學風格也深受它們的影響。在這兩本書裡面它很少提及這些文法專有名詞，沒有提及五大句型，沒有連綴動詞這些專有名詞，它真的很少很少提及文法專有名詞，比我講得還要少。我的學生們也都是上這兩本文法課本然後去考英檢，考學校考試，並且得到好成績。這過程中，我們並沒有接觸太多文法專有名詞，我也從來沒有提及五大句型。由此可證，要把文法學習好，鑽研那些文法專有名詞是沒有必要的。

✅舉例一
它不會跟你說我們來學習「冠詞」的用法，它會說這個單元我們要來學習the的用法。然後練習如何在生活句子中使用the。我在影片中提及的「先理解」然後馬上「做練習」就是這本書的學習精神。它在您理解完畢之後，直接教您如何做應用。它會先舉例給您看，然後直接做大量練習。

✅舉例二
它不會跟你說接下來我們要學「從屬連接詞」。它會說我們這個單元要學「although/though/even though」（這些都是從屬連接詞）。它不會落落長的跟你說「從屬子句」「複句」。不不，這太複雜了。它直接舉例給你看，它直接告訴你這些連接詞後面要有主詞跟動詞。並且直接做練習。

它一個單元一個單元很有耐心地告訴你這些「字」或是「句型」要怎麼用。舉例，然後練習。但是它不適合零基礎的學員，它適合已經有單字量還有基本概念的學員。我會建議您在上完我的基礎英文課程之後把這兩本書寫過一遍，邊寫邊念。裡面的練習句型都很生活化，寫完之後您的英文功力會大增。

我的想法就是，你可以不用去記make/let/have/get是「使役動詞」。但是你要知道這四個動詞是後面要加上一個受詞再加上一個原形動詞。你可以從生活中取材來記。像是這兩首有名的歌「let it be」跟「let it go」就可以幫您記住它的句型構造。然後您要做造句練習。接著您藉由大量聽讀來複習。最後，您自然而然就會使用它了。

我會鼓勵,建議你們把鑽研五大句型還有文法專有名詞的用法的時間拿去做大量聽讀。聽英文歌，閱讀英文，聽英文演講，英文廣播，看英文電影或影集等做大量的輸入（input）培養語感。這樣的學習方法被證明有效太多，也有趣太多了。

學英文文法，對我來說。是好好的認識每個字的用法，是好好認識時態，還有句型的用法。你要把每個字，時態，句型當成你想交的朋友，好好的認識他們。

學文法，可以不用搞得很複雜。了解基本的概念之後，直接看例句，理解出它的用法，並且做練習，用大量聽讀來做複習，最後要在生活中應用它。

在我的課程中，我偶爾還是會提及那些專有名詞的名稱，您不需要記得它們專有名詞。只要，您會實際使用我提及的那些字，就可以了。但是名詞，動詞，介系詞，時態名稱等這些都是非常基本的名稱，還是希望您可以好好理解喔！

p.s. 「英文基本概念（下）」會在明天更新到「基礎英文第一課」課程中。

#不要一路錯到80歲好嗎
【我知道 life is hard, 但求求大家別再錯這個英文標點用法了】

有一個標點符號錯誤很奇妙，不管怎樣地「超前佈署」、不同時候先講了10000次、給了再多例子，學生在寫的時候還是會「越錯越勇」。

很大原因是因為不了解真正英文寫作寫得好的人，在寫作時要想多少事情、照顧多少事情。缺少這樣的 awareness。

很少在文章中講那麼小面向的 "what" 問題，但今天破例了。因為再錯下去祖先真的要驚醒了。

Although / While / Even though S+V, 這樣的結構，就是一個從屬 (副詞) 子句，不管再長，接到主要子句時都是用逗號，不可以休息用句號，更不能自己發揮創意加上 however。

學生可以理解這樣的句子是錯的：
Although she studied so hard. However, she didn't pass the exam.

也可以正確改成:
Although she studied so hard, she didn't pass the exam.

但不代表真的會喔。因為從屬子句一長，災難將發生：
Although she is interested in anything that has something to do with the development of artificial intelligence (在這邊想休息一下，導致就放了句號），變成：

*Although she is interested in anything that has something to do with the development of artificial intelligence. However, she is not attending the AI conference this time.

請還是寫成，即便妳有一個18行的從屬子句：
Although she is interested in anything that has something to do with the development of artificial intelligence, she is not attending the AI conference this time.

沒有人說過從屬子句很長的時候就可以忘記 Although 的存在ㄋㄟ。我已經沒心力分析 , however, 亂接兩個句子的錯了，明天再說吧。