#講反話
“Cherry 🍒 on top” = 「錦上添花」
“We can’t be too careful” - 點解
————————
講反話
明報 | 英文 | 毛孟靜
看過一部荷李活電影，男主角給人喝罵：You killed him! 你殺了他！ 他一臉不屑答：Yeah right. 哦，對的。之後控方就真的提出，說證人已認罪。
這個證明當然不能成立，因為不論中、英文或其他許多語文都一樣，日常生活中的對答，一定包括說反話。
就像有人憑空指你考試出貓，你只覺沒好氣，答：對呀！我還買試卷呢！按常理，就知道這回答只是句反話。
英文中一些用詞，聽上去好像十分正面，但意思恰恰相反，這就是不折不扣的反話。譬如說，He has a thin chance of winning，他勝出的機會很微。Thin chance 解作機會小，那麼fat chance 就等於機會大了？
不，不管 fat 或 thin，說的都是機會小；fat chance 的語氣更重一些，可以指完全沒有機會，更包含一點嘲諷味道。
• Do you think he's going to win this? 你認為他會贏嗎？Fat chance. 完全不。
一些英文習語，就像我們的成語，本身一般用作表達正面信息，但視乎上文下理，一樣可以用作反話。像要批評政府抗疫措施，中文措詞可用上「雷厲風行」一語，來增添尖酸刻薄之意。英文也一樣。Cherry on top 是指雪糕上的一粒車厘子，跟中文的「錦上添花」有異曲同工之妙，但實際運用起來，意思卻正反皆可。
• He was acquitted of the fraud charge. And for the cherry on top, the company is giving him his old job back. 他脫了欺詐罪。錦上添花的是，公司讓他復職。
· I kept re-running my cringeworthy meeting with him, and thecherry on top was that I was weak and headachy, a little bitqueasy. 我不斷回想跟他那個尷尬突兀的會面，而「錦上添花」的是，事發時我虛弱、頭痛及有一點暈眩。
類似的用法另有 to a fault，通常解作一個人的某些特質過了頭：He is generous to a fault. 他太慷慨了。
但用作反話，可以說 He's zealous to a fault，他熱心得過了頭，亦即等於說這個人 overzealous，瞎熱心。而 overzealous staff 往往是服務行業道歉聲明中的一個常用語：都是我們過分熱心的（因而幫了倒忙）職員不對。
另外有一句話，不正也不反，卻有許多人會誤會了意思：
• We can't be too careful. 根據字面，說的彷彿是「我們不可以太小心」？錯了，意思其實是「我們不可能太小心」，也即是說，沒有太小心這回事，我們必須絕對小心就是了。還有以下用語，它們又是不是反話呢？
1. I can't sing to save my life.
2. I can't do small talk to save my life.
這兩句話同樣不正也不反。自稱 can't do something to save one’s own life，是自謙甚至自貶的說法，是說自己完全做不到正在說的事，故答案是：
1. 我（五音不全）唱不了歌。
2. 我完全不擅長寒暄。
cringeworthy意思 在 [討論] FanGraphs作家認為該修改鏟人規則- 看板MLB 的推薦與評價
https://goo.gl/oih3Gw
Chris Coghlan, the Takeout Slide Rule, and Catcher Collisions
by Craig Edwards - September 18,2015
我就翻重點就好
一開始他引用了 MLB 對以滑壘防礙阻殺的規則 6.05(m) (不是7.09(f), 那是錯的)，這
和我們理解差不多就略過...
As a matter of practical application, players are generally allowed to take
out the fielder so long as they are within an arms length of the bag when
they slide. Under the current application of the rule, Coghlan’s slide was
legal. Still, as the image below shows Coghlan was pretty far out of the
baseline and that his leg was fairly high. (The image hopefully isn’t too
cringeworthy — the worse, side-angle footage was purposely avoided.).
以現行 MLB 執法情況來說，只要跑者在鏟野手時手碰得到壘包，通常都沒什麼問題。(根
據規則6.05) 所以以此來說，Coghlan 這一鏟是合法的。不過可以看見 Coghlan 確實
離壘線相當遠，而且腳抬得很高。(見圖，作者刻意選一張姜正浩腳沒彎往奇怪方向的)
Although the intent of the slide might not be to cause injury, due to the
nature of the play, the risk of injury is present on all takeout slides, and
it does happen, both to fielders and runners. Coghlan’s slide was pretty far
from the bag, but no farther than Kang himself has previously slid — and
compare the height of Coghlan’s legs above to Adrian Beltre‘s on this play:
雖然鏟人的目的不是使人受傷，但對跑者和野手兩方，都確實有受傷的風險。Coghlan 雖
然離壘包有段距離，但其實沒有姜正浩之前鏟得一次遠(見圖)。我們也可以比較 Coghlan
和 Beltre 鏟人時腳的高度(見圖)
This is not to say that Beltre is a dirty player or that Kang is to blame for
his injury, but only to point out that, at the moment, these actions are an
accepted part of baseball. While all will not agree, it seems reasonable that
if injuries could be prevented without ruining the fabric of the game, rules
should be implemented to do the same. The recent lesson here comes from the
rules surrounding catcher collisions.
這意思不是說 Beltre 很髒，或是姜正浩該躲不躲才會受傷，而是要指出此行為在大聯盟
中目前是允許的。雖然不是人人同意，但如果能在不大幅更動球賽內容的情況下，避免受
傷的可能，則聯盟應該修改規則，就像最近的本壘衝撞規則一樣。
...以下解釋 Posey rule，省略...
It is important to note that MLB did not actually outlaw collisions at home
plate. They addressed the principal causes of collisions, instructed teams on
the same, and while the rule did cause some confusion in its first year, the
rule appears to be by and large successful.
重點是，聯盟並沒有完全禁止本壘衝撞。反之，是提出本壘衝撞的具體規則後，再和球團
溝通。雖然第一年改規則時確實有些疑問，但目前看來是很成功的規則。
The first change does make a lot of sense. Others have called for changes in
past years or discussed the potential for changes, and Mike Bates requested
today that the first rule above also apply to the takeout slide. Colleges
have already taken action. Below is Rule 8, Section 4 for NCAA baseball:
Posey Rule 第一條確實有道理(跑者不可為了造成身體接觸而離開跑壘的直線)。其他人也
有討論過類似的修改，像 Mike Bates 就認為也應該讓這條規則適用在鏟人滑壘上。大學
棒球則早就已經有類似規定。以下是 NCAA 規則 8.4
SECTION 4. The intent of the force-play-slide rule is to ensure the
safety of all players. This is a safety and an interference rule. Whether the
defense could have completed the double play has no bearing on the
applicability of this rule. This rule pertains to a force-play situation at
any base, regardless of the number of outs.
第四節：本條規則是為了確保選手安全。為安全和妨礙球賽類規則。防守方是否能完成阻
殺和本規則效力無關，並和哪一壘及該局出局數多少無關。
a. On any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base
and in a direct line between the two bases. It is permissible for the slider’
s momentum to carry him through the base in the baseline extended (see
diagram).
a. 在阻礙野手阻殺時，跑者必須在地上直線滑進壘，且在兩壘之直線上滑壘。跑者可
以利用自身動量，在壘線的延伸上滑出壘包。
Exception—A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the
runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making
contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
例外：在沒有身體接觸或影響守備的可能性之情況，本條規則不適用。
1) “On the ground” means either a head-first slide or a slide with one
leg and buttock on the ground before the base.
1) 在地上進壘，意指撲壘或是單腳和屁股觸地之滑壘。
2) “Directly into a base” means the runner’s entire body (feet, legs,
trunk and arms) must stay in a straight line between the bases.
2) 直線滑進壘，意指跑者之全身(含腳、腿、軀幹和手)都必須保持在兩壘間直線上
The NCAA rule goes on with a chart and explains that the runner’s momentum
can carry him through the bag, that pop-up slides are legal, and that the
penalty for violating the rule with or without contact is declaring both the
runner and batter out. The above rule only applies to force outs so those
players attempting to go for a double or steal a base can still try to avoid
tags by moving their bodies wide of the bag and reaching out with their arms
like on this Jason Heyward steal.
NCAA 的規則附解說圖，說明跑者可以利用自身動量滑出壘包，滑壘後可立刻站起，並且
違反規則時，不論有無造成接觸，跑者及打者皆判出局。因為只對阻殺適用，所以為了
搶二壘安打或盜壘的跑者，仍然可以滑出壘線以手觸壘來避免刺殺，如 Jason Heyward
之盜壘(見影片)。
This rule will not eliminate the risk of injury entirely. The Beltre slide
from above would likely still be legal. The Brett Lawrie play from earlier in
the year would likely still be legal, but if it meant an automatic out,
players would likely stop the type of takeout slide that hurt Kang, and it
could also help prevent runner injuries as well considering the plays of Neil
Walker (here) and Peter Bourjos (here). The takeout slide is not going to be
eliminated, but it will not even be altered without a change to the rules.
The outside the baseline, legs out swipe serves no purpose for the runner
other than to impede the thrower after the out is made. Potentially injurious
plays should be prevented if they have virtually no effect on how the game is
played. Telling players to slide directly into the bag is an easy fix and
hardly affects the game at all.
這樣的規則不會完全去除受傷風險。上圖 Beltre 的滑壘應該還是合法。Brett Lawrie
之前的滑壘也應該是合法。但如果會直接被判出局，則球員應該不會再作出像造成姜正浩
受傷的鏟人滑壘，也同時減低跑者受傷的可能。如 Neil Walker 和 Peter Bourjos 的兩
個例子(見影片)。鏟人不會完全消失，但如果不改規則，什麼改變都不會有。離開壘線的
掃堂腿對跑壘本身沒有意義，單純是為了出局後才阻礙傳球。如果棒球本身影響不大，則
應該防止類似的高風險動作。叫球員直線滑進壘是一個簡單又對球賽影響不大的改法。完
==
我是不知道覺得這個play一點問題都沒有的人是怎麼想啦。球員本身的意圖沒有問題，
我同意，因為目標就是阻止傳球。可是既然會造成受傷，代表應該想想改進辦法吧？而
不是一直在dirty play/clean play上打轉。Coghlan 鏟姜這個案例美國人也是戰得亂七
八糟，跟亞洲風氣無關好嗎？這篇文才出來沒多久下面就戰了快一百篇，ESPN的 Keith
Law 也說這是dirty play然後下面也是戰得一塌糊塗。如果覺得生活中什麼事情沒「錯」
就不需要思考的人，大概還無法理解吧？
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 71.236.38.2
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/MLB/M.1442674509.A.5F7.html
※ 編輯: abc2090614 (71.236.38.2), 09/19/2015 22:55:43
... <看更多>