相信許多英語學習者都曾背過這個公式,SAT的學生要了解這個觀念,且對這個句型懷抱著恐懼。
A 之於 B 猶如 C 之於D
= A is to B what C is to D.
= A is to B as C is to D.
= As C is to D, so is A to B.
但若從很簡單的譬喻句去了解,就會很清楚了。簡單句基礎: 主詞+be+補語
我先來看一下常見的譬喻
(1) Love is (a) spice.暗喻(metaphor)1
(2) Love is like/as (a) spice.明喻(simile)
(1)’ A = B
(2)’ A ≈ B
味道(spice)很具象,很熟悉,只要吃飯就知道那是甚麼感覺。但愛(love),很抽象難以捉摸我們難以定義,所以我們用味道來了解愛。是很簡單的譬喻。
語言中比喻和譬喻,不只很常出現在文學修辭,其實充斥著每個地方。根據George Lakoff 的理論,這是認知能力的一種。用自己熟悉的知識去明白部熟習的知識,用具體的東西去了解抽象的東西。
我們現在另用what (the thing which) 的句子來強調一下
(3) Love is what (the thing which) spice is.
順道一提,所以what是個關代。
口氣有了,我想要更精準的說明,哪個面向相似?
兩個比較的對象好了
Love: couples= spice: eaters
love to couples = spice to eaters
放到句子(3):
(3)’ Love is _________what spice is ________.
(4) Love is (to couples) what spice is (to
eaters) [這是由暗喻(1) 變來的]
相同的方式,我們放進去句子(2)
(2)’ Love is ________ as/like spice is __________.
(5) Love is to couples as/like spice is to eaters. [這是由明喻(2) 變來的]
如果您已經上了許多網站查這個句型,會發現。其實美國人更常用加as/like 的句子。我看了五六個網站,感覺絕大多數人直覺不喜歡what 的句構,但也說不出個所以然。可能是what 的句子太迂迴了,轉了兩圈。
最後若是要強調的話,把as spice to eaters
移到前面
(6) As spice is to eaters, love is similar to the
couples.
知道 I am too-> so am I 表達相同的句型嗎? 沒錯來倒裝一下。
(7) As spice is to eaters, so is love to couples.
[生活應用區]
“Republican senators are to sexual flings as
family values are to domestic abuse.”
Katy Sharpe September 13, 2009 · 3:07 pm
Republican senators≈ family values (A≈ B) 共和黨員≈家庭價值。怎麼說?
Republican senators: sexual fling ≈family values:
domestic abuse (共和黨議員: 一夜風流≈家庭價值: 家暴)
共和黨議員不允許一夜風流就如家庭價值不允許家暴一樣。
[考題區]
最後因為我們台灣真的習慣從考試來學習,做成考題
(1)Smile is to mankind _________ sunshine is to
flowers.
下面哪個不能選
(A) while (B) like (C) as (D) what
答案 (A)
(2) 閱讀之於心靈,如食物之於身體。
翻譯
Reading: the mind= food: body
Reading is to the mind what food to the body.
Reading is to the mind as/like food to the body. 最多人公認易懂
As food to the body, so is reading to the mind.
註1:抱歉我很沒創意,所以這個句子來自Seinfeld
Love is a spice with many tastes--a dizzying
array of textures and moments.
(Wayne Knight as Newman in the final episode of
Seinfeld, 1998)
且每每自己造句,總會有些語感魔人出來告訴我不道地。所以我直接用國外的例子。
註2: For the record,我想說這些變形的中間過程(transformation process)只是輔助,並不代表我的論證就等於是語言認知的實際過程,或是我特別相信某個理論派別。