tp040906 asked in 社會與文化語言 · 8 years ago

for less or more? 釋疑

What you do not know about oil, can harm your vehicle, and what you do not know about "synthetic" oil can cost you money, you need not spend to get the same or better performance for less.

you need not spend to get the same or better performance for less. 句末for less視什麼意思? 我總覺得應該是for more比較合適。這整段話大概在講什麼?

Update:

less指的是performance嗎? 還是指花費的錢?

Update 2:

我補上原文的出處好了。對於文意的理解是沒有太大的問題,大概可以推敲得出作者所想表達的意思,但是如果從句構與文法的角度來看,我總覺得怪怪的,不像是平常會看到的句子,所以就不知道是口語,還是我自己的英文還沒到家了。哈哈。感謝各為的回答!http://www.synlube.com/synthetic.htm

5 Answers

Rating
  • Kevin
    Lv 7
    8 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    "就算是美國人, 一樣也可能會理解錯誤的."

    這點我不否認, 但是同樣的,

    就算是美國人, 一樣也可能會寫出錯誤的句子.羅莉大師的論點並非無的放矢, 既然版主要的是句構及文法上的討論, 那麼不妨就實務面來說說.我個人也覺得原句語法不甚順暢, 妙手兄說得好: "根本邊講邊改變說法".[for less]其實在不同的上下文會有不同的意思. prisoner及羅莉兩位的說法都對的. 其中的關鍵在於[collocation], 中文稱為"(用字)配對".先說羅大師的詮釋.

    如果"這個less是相對於better而說的", 那不應該用less, 而應該用worse與better配對.

    而如果一定要用less, 那前面應該用more來跟它配對.

    所以羅大師的詮釋寫出來是這樣的:

    You need not spend to get the same or better performance (only) for worse (performance).

    OR:

    You need not spend more [to get the same or better performance] for less.

    [spend more for less]是idiomatic use, 正是羅大師要的含意.所以我覺得原作者是想表達羅大師說的含意, 但是原句的[for less]的確不太恰當.

    2012-11-23 22:10:22 補充:

    Hi princess,

    Don't you agree that "spend more for less" means "spend more money for what is less than you expect to come with it?"

    2012-11-24 13:44:48 補充:

    "better/worse, higher/lower, more/less等這些字都可能交互混用"

    話這麼說是沒錯, 不過最好還是以不讓讀者產生混淆為前提(像本題這句就是). 假定作者真的用[for worse], 相信就不會有今天這場討論了, 甚至板主也許根本就不會提問. 畢竟作者真正的意思只有他自己知道,

  • 呆子
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    1.對機油無知會傷車(以氣候來加不同機油),不知合成機油會讓你破費(該油耐高溫且延長換油時間),既然已花錢當然希望能達到更好的油料表現。not---for less是以否定的否定語氣比肯定更強烈。這用法如not a few(非常多)

    2.延伸意思:要對機油有充分瞭解,否則會花冤枉錢---------

  • 8 years ago

    ... for less 為常用語,是"花少一點錢;便宜一點"

    美國知名食物賣場連鎖店就叫 Food 4 Less (food for less = 比較平價/便宜的食物) --> www.food4less.com

    2012-11-21 16:44:51 補充:

    嗯,我細看一下

    you need not spend to get the same or better performance for less.

    本句很口語,根本邊講邊改變說法

    原先要說 你不需花冤枉錢: You need not (don't need to) spend that kind of money.

    講到一半,變成要說;花少點錢可以達到同等或更好的效果

    you can get the same or better performance for less.

    兩個概念衝撞就造出這不通的句子. 在口語中,仍然可懂。但還是不正確。

    2012-11-24 03:39:44 補充:

    作者應該是個 native speaker,前兩句就大致證明了 -- 但是第三句為何明顯出錯?看他通通打逗點,不分隔句子,可以假設他寫得很快 -- 但他想得更快。所以有可能急慌慌把兩句併成出錯的一句。

    以上的猜測,未必絕對正確。但提供一種可能性。

    有興趣可以參考一些"bungled speech"的討論。

  • 羅莉
    Lv 7
    8 years ago

    樓上大大對版主原句的理解與改寫, 恐係有誤; 就算是美國人, 一樣也可能會理解錯誤的.

    What you do not know about oil can harm your vehicle, and what you

    do not know about "synthetic" oil can cost you money; you need not

    spend to get the same or better performance for less.

    明明是否定語意的you need not, 豈可理解成肯定的you can?

    「花少少錢」是spend less, 不會是spend for less.

    spend to get xxx: 為了要得到xxx而花錢

    spend (to get...) for... : 花了錢要xxx(結果)卻xxx

    to get.....: 不定詞片語表目的

    spend to get the same or better performance for less:

    這個less是相對於better而說的, 也就是說:

    - better performance: 更好的(引擎)性能

    - for less (performance): 得到更糟的(性能)

    花了銀子要增進性能結果卻更差, 類似於「賠了夫人又折兵」或「花錢買罪受」的含意.

    cost you money要接分號或句號, 英文不可用逗號來連接兩個完整句子.

    全句翻譯

    你對油劑的不暸解可能會損傷你的愛車, 而你對合成油劑的的無知可能讓你荷包失血; 你大可不必為了維持或改善性能而花大把銀子卻(性能)更差/適得其反.

    2012-11-21 15:33:57 補充:

    妙手大大所說的用法是有的, 介係詞用法本來就很靈活, 但要對前後文.

    版主句子又是need not spend, 又是better performance的, 您說for less還會是花費少一點的意思嗎?

    2012-11-23 14:41:14 補充:

    哈哈, 邊講邊改變說法, 您想像力真豐富!

    2012-11-23 14:47:05 補充:

    you need not spend to get the same or better performance

    你不需要花大錢去維持或改善性能

    for less.

    卻弄巧成拙

    2012-11-23 22:39:54 補充:

    發問者都提出原文的出處了,證明版主沒有抄錯句子,句子明明是You need not spend to get...,有人偏偏要把它改成完全不同的You can get...來自圓其說,批評正確解答.

    我同意若改成You can get的話, for less是只花較少的錢;

    但句子是You need not spend, 句尾for less再解釋為只花較少的錢就語意不通了.這個for less明顯是相對於same or better而說的,指的都是performance.

    請別再眾口鑠金來混淆發問者了.我即使因被圍剿而未得最佳解答並不重要, 如果讓錯誤知識勝出,才是YK+最大的悲哀.

    2012-11-23 22:57:14 補充:

    換個角度而言, 如Kevin大師所說, spend後面應有個more來相對於句尾的less, 語意就十分順暢, 這我同意; 不過就算沒有more, 這spend也可作不及物動詞解, 一樣具有spend much(more) money的含意, 語意仍然順暢.

    2012-11-23 23:20:39 補充:

    spend (more money)....for less performance <--- 也就是弄巧成拙

    括號內容即使省略也不改弄巧成拙意思.

    2012-11-23 23:33:14 補充:

    Prisoner擅改原文自作的觀點, 已顯然站不住腳, 卻還一再指稱拙答dead wrong, 不僅頑固, 更說明了how arrogant you are!

    2012-11-23 23:42:43 補充:

    Prisoner多次公開誣衊我有voting troop, 令我莫名奇妙. 我從來痛恨不公平的卑劣灌票, 又豈能有此舉? 真是笑話, 原來她因為有此認定懷恨, 所以我所有的回答就變成錯誤或TwEnglish了, 如此心態, 令人搖頭!

    2012-11-24 10:21:51 補充:

    我從來就不認為native speakers寫的句子一定正確, 反而常見到充滿小瑕疵的文章出自native speakers之手, 司空見慣(包含經常盤踞本版的「公主」在內), 因為native speakers學英文不需透過文法所以小瑕疵不斷. 版主本文豈止是第三句才出錯(完整句子之間只以逗號銜接), 第一句主詞與動詞之間那個逗號就是錯誤了. 所以妙手大等人合理假設後面這句是邊想邊寫兩句併一句, 也不失為可能性之一, 但關鍵在於凡是認定for less只作「花較少錢」解的人, 才會傾向於這種假設. 其實for less不限於只作此解.

    2012-11-24 10:30:09 補充:

    用逗號連接兩句(spliced sentences)雖是他們常犯的錯誤, 但語意上不合理的兩句併一句卻不多見, 吾人似不宜作這樣誇張的假設.

    我認為他不是腦快手慢兩句併一句, 而只是錯在漏寫了一字yet:

    you need not spend to get the same or better performance YET for less.

    這yet for less就不是「花較少錢」了, 因為前面已有need not spend;

    這個less是因為前面的better, 總之是在說performance(性能)

    2012-11-24 10:30:42 補充:

    雖然Kevin指出less不是better的搭配詞, 但用於性能的「好壞」, 一般人是可能慣於較廣義的概念用詞的. better/worse, higher/lower, more/less等這些字都可能交互混用, 請問Kevin同意嗎?

    2012-11-24 10:40:42 補充:

    「你不必為了維持或提高性能而去花(大)錢, 卻反而降低了(性能).」

    這句話十分通順, 並沒有兩句說太快而不合理併成一句的問題.

    2012-11-24 16:51:18 補充:

    這個Prisoner顯然對所謂「灌票」一詞懵懂無知.

    從YK+有票選最佳解答制度與知識圈、知識團設計以來, 邀票就是YK+的正常生態, YK+沒有任何規定禁止發函邀票, 邀票是允許的行為, 雖然它可能被不肖者利用, 但這是制度本身缺陷的無奈, 並不是違規行為. 知識解答優劣常常是頗為明顯的, 如果您發現有明顯錯誤或較差的解答票數異常增加, 您當然可以作反制而發函邀票, 這完全沒有違規. 重點在您是不是以明顯錯誤或較差的解答來發函邀票. 而收到邀票函者也有判斷餘地, 並非一定會投他.

    2012-11-24 16:51:47 補充:

    而YK+所禁止的「灌票」, 指的是一人開多帳戶, 數十個甚至上百個, 不參與問答(所謂小白), 用來集中投票奪取最佳解答、自問自答、蓄意評價等, 這才是違規行為, 嚴重者可以停權處分. YK+投票總票數以101票為上限, 也就是說只要達51票就過半必勝; 若有人有51分身帳戶, 那他必然所向無敵, 等而下之的灌票也都可輕易勝出, 造成嚴重不公平, 因此YK+嚴格取締灌票, 而不公平投票仍然頻頻發生, 所以是無奈.

    2012-11-24 16:51:59 補充:

    我在YK+的回答一向嚴謹用心, 回答品質無需老王賣瓜, 有些穩定的支持者賜票是不足為奇的. 但我也常遇到拙劣解答的不公平競爭, 所以我當然也會發函邀票以捍衛正確知識, 這是正當行為俯仰無愧, Prisoner無知而妄加批評甚至不停對此正當行為作人身攻擊, 把我妖魔化, 真是莫名奇妙.

    YK+存在很多不公平競爭, 不去批評聲討, 卻要對我的認真服務騷擾個沒完沒了, 試問在YK+我該是個被惡毒攻擊的對象嗎? Prisoner妳不慚愧嗎??

    Source(s): 羅莉 - 英文文法與翻譯經驗
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 8 years ago

    Quote:

    "you need not spend to get the same or better performance for less."

    actually is not good English. Typically, it should read:

    "you can get the same of better performance for less." where "for less" means for less money or lower cost.

    妳可以"花少少錢"就可以得到一樣或更好的表現。

    Or another way to write it can be:

    you need not spend much to get the same of better performance.

    2012-11-21 18:39:45 補充:

    1. "for less" is definitely "for less money" - there are so many stores named "XXX for less" in US and it is a daily verbal language.

    2. I am impressed by 002 for the imaginary argument - it is wrong and pure malarkey.

    2012-11-21 18:40:39 補充:

    3. Oh, I just see comment 001 making the same reasoning - answer 002 is dead wrong.

    2012-11-23 21:18:26 補充:

    Anyone in US can tell you what "... for less" mean and how it is used.

    it is all about $$$$

    花少點錢可以達到同等或更好的效果

    you can get the same or better performance for less.

    2012-11-23 23:15:19 補充:

    Kevin,

    Comment 003 explained it - it is a bad English showing the thinking process of the speaker.

    There is nothing to debate about it. Answer 002 is dead wrong.

    2012-11-23 23:21:01 補充:

    busy on black Friday and would not waste more time on a person who

    1. so wrong

    2. claiming that all others disagree with her is "請別再眾口鑠金來混淆發問者了"

    3. with intention to 圍剿so that shee 而未得最佳解答

    4. from who has used voting troops and claim 未得最佳解答並不重要

    What a shameless, arrogant person indeed.

    2012-11-24 11:51:25 補充:

    Empty son of the good hander - I don't think you will ever convince her why she is wrong...

    2012-11-24 12:10:20 補充:

    And how do I know she has voting troops? Because I received her invitation a few times to vote for her to support "quality answers".

    2012-11-25 00:42:20 補充:

    1. if you think your friends will come and vote for "the best answer" but not yours (with your name clearly marked), then you are pretending to be innocent.

    2. knowledge is not popularity contest inviting your crony to vote may be legal but not acceptable to scholars.

    2012-11-25 00:44:35 補充:

    3. YK+存在很多不公平競爭, 不去批評聲討? Because the requirement for master level is higher than those beginners. Most of them will disappear in a week months but you stay here using immoral practices to force out many good posters.

    2012-11-25 00:47:16 補充:

    4. you probably did not realize that I am not the only one you fought with - I observed you for many years and I did not pick on you immediately after your voting troop events. You have been fighting with many others and used many other ID (do you want me to tell you who they are?)

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.