Changes from the outside

為何這些動詞(紅字的部份)用過去式?
但第二段那個"agree"卻又用現在式?

In the late 1920s, researchers found a tribe of untouched by modern society. This was the first reported meeting with the Yanomami, who were living deep within the South American jungle.

Scientists agree that their location deep in the forest helped keep their culture unchanged. Until recently, most  Yanomami still lived in isolated regions. Everything they needed came from the rain forest. They hunted, fished and farmed the land. Then a discovery brought the outside world to them. And along with it came deadly changes.




[StudioClassRoom 11 2012]

時態的使用問題

時態的使用問題
有句話我原先中文的意思是這樣:

"在目前的SVN中,所有的channel都會被使用到,不管是彩色列印或是黑白列印. 這是必需的,因為VideoDriver在這之前就已經起動了4個(所有的)channel."

大致說明一下這個東西的背景,
印表機有4個channel (藍紅黃黑),照理說如果只印黑白,因該機器只需要處理黑色的channel,而當使用者進行彩色列印時則4個顏色的channel都會需要被處理.

但現在有某機型的設計是不管是彩色或黑白,4個channel都需要處理,只是黑白列印時,原本不需使用的另外三個channel裡面沒有任何資料(但程序還是要跑). 之所以要這樣用的原因是有個叫videoDriver的東西在機器在一開機時就已經設定好機器4個channel都要用,如果列印時不4個channel的使用程序都去處理,印表機就會當機,偏偏videoDriver設定完後大家又不能再去動這個設定....所以只好硬著頭皮這樣用.

我英文原先是這樣寫
"In current SVN, all of channels will be used whatever the printing is mono or color.
It is necessary because  VideoDriver has enabled  the 4 channels".

我一直很猶豫這兩句話要使用什麼時態?

以前學英文時都有教過去發生的兩件事先發生的用過去完成式,後發生的用過去式.
但我現在的例子比較像 "某一個既定的事實"(使用4channel)和"某一個既定事實如果發生之前伴隨的一個事件"(videoDriver先設定了要用4 channel)....感覺要用現在式,但又覺得用未來式念起來很順....@@.....另外要如何在現在式和未來式中表現"先發生的事?"

Should

在書上看到兩個should例句及其參考中譯

"He should be here on time as usual this time"
"他這次應該會和平常一樣準時到的"

"It is strange that he should not be here on time as usual this time."
"好奇怪,他這次竟然不像平常一樣準時到達"

我的疑問主要在第二句...我一直覺得他的意思是
"好奇怪,他不應該像平常一樣準時到達"
????

laser weapons

"To those who grew up in the 20th century, few things would have seemed as 21st-century as laser weapons."

對這句話,我解讀的中文涵義是

"對在20世紀成長的人來說,雷射武器應該是有機會在21世紀看到的"


句中出現"would have"是否意味著雖然已經21世紀了,但到目前為止還沒看到?

原文:http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10012168.html

would

由於剛看到文法書假設語氣的部份,現在看到would都會停下來想一下....
其實我感覺我對於"would"的用法,理解程度和熟練度都還不太夠,

我很好奇,底下這句跟假假設語氣有沒有關係?

Ms. Allan would be one of just 400 patients, the letter said, and she would have his help navigating the local health care system.

(原文:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/business/yourmoney/31doctor.html?ex=1280462400&en=0962198848cd4876&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&_rmoc.semityn.www
)

我的疑問:
1.第一個would是不是假設語氣?
如果是,那意思因該就是付費後Ms Allan成為400位付費病人之一,但我覺得很不合理,都付了錢了還和400個人同等級....
所以我一直不知道那個would放在那邊做什麼,我甚至覺得寫成
" Ms. Allan is one of just 400 patients" 還比較合理

2.第二個would是否就是假設語氣?
意思是雖然現在不是,但如我付費後就能有" his help navigating the local health care system."

Microsoft Store

這句話是在一篇評論"微軟商店"(類似蘋果專賣店)的新聞看到的.
大概猜得出來這句話的意思大概是

"曾經輝煌的微軟,模仿著蘋果的零售策略" 
(似乎還帶著一點嘲諷的意味??)

A somewhat snarky but data-driven piece on Microsoft aping Apple's retail strategy and how it shows the desperation of this once-mighty company.


我有幾個疑問
1.動詞在那?? "but"的前後看來看去都找不到動詞
2."somewhat snarky" 比較確切的意思?
3."data-driven piece on" 看不太懂這段的意思




原文:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57499419-75/yes-a-microsoft-store-wows-a-naysayer/

affluent drivers

在書上看到一句話
Some affluent drivers consider speeding tickets the price they pay for driving as fast as they please.

這句話大概看得懂意思因該是
"有些有錢的駕駛人把罰單當作是可以讓他們隨心所欲超速的費用"

不過英文我一直接不太起來前後兩段
前半段
"Some affluent drivers consider speeding tickets"
後半段
"  the price they pay for driving as fast as they please"
總覺得前後接不太起來.
是否有簡略一些關係代名詞一類的東西嗎?

如果是我可能會這樣寫
Some affluent drivers consider speeding tickets as the price (that) they pay for driving as fast as they please.