下沙论坛

标题: 不是吻我（英语小知识） [打印本页]

作者: zyx62992 时间: 2005-5-30 09:38
标题: 不是吻我（英语小知识）
有一段时间,街上出现了带字的T恤,其中有Kiss-me-quick字样于是有人告知这英文的意思

是"快吻我",其实这却是一种花的名称.
英语"快吻我"写作 kiss me quick,没有连字符.而带有连字符的,严格意义上讲:表"野生三色
堇"的俗称,可简写成Kiss-me.当然,这也不必追究.
也有“戴于头后的无缘小软帽”的意思
无独有偶, Kiss-me-at-the-gate 亦非"在大门口吻我"而是指金银花.

在英语中,有些词不能按字面去解,例如 American beauty,不能译作"美国佳丽",这也是个花
名,是指"红蔷薇"
还有China rose不是中国玫瑰，而是月季花

作者: zyx62992 时间: 2005-5-31 08:56

作者: 携手游人间 时间: 2005-5-31 11:55
<

>excilent

作者: 蓝海风 时间: 2005-5-31 19:24

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-6-1 0:56:13编辑过]

作者: 蓝海风 时间: 2005-5-31 19:38

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-6-1 0:56:35编辑过]

作者: 携手游人间 时间: 2005-5-31 19:52
楼上的怎么突然搞个保险出来啊

作者: 蓝海风 时间: 2005-5-31 19:53
In claims cases ,courts faced concrete human situation,and often their sympathies showed.In many trials,the heart of the issue was whether what the insured stated in his application,or his policy,constituted a "warranty'or not . If the statements were "Warranties,"and were wrong-lies or mistakes-the policy was no more than a scrap of paper.But even if the insured had been a trifle larcenous or foolish , it was after all on his grieving family that the loss really fell;and an uninsured business or home,burnt to the ground,seemed a high price to pay for alittle concealment.The companies,Chief Justice Ryan of Wisconsin felt,acted almost as if their "single function"was to collect their premiums running "little or no risk."Hence courts resisted the full logic of the concept of warranty.They went to great lengths to hold that misstatements were only "representations",even when the policy said in black and white that all of its statements were warranties.

作者: 蓝海风 时间: 2005-5-31 19:54

以下是引用携手游人间在2005-5-31 19:52:29的发言：
$ J8 D/ G- \* b+ [, W0 |2 `楼上的怎么突然搞个保险出来啊

晕,优盘没带在图书馆,发一下等会来删除,斑竹你还真勤快啊,先8 要删,谢谢了

作者: 蓝海风 时间: 2005-5-31 20:02
A typical case was Rogers v.Phoenix Ins.Co.(1890),where a "one-story,shingle-roof,frame building,'owned by Edward and mary Roger,burnt down.When they applied for insurance,they had said the house was fifteen years old.The policy stated that "every statement ... is a warranty...and if any false statements are made ,this policy shall be void."The company argued(among other things)that the house was 20 years old,and the policy therefore void.The court held the statement was only a "representation,:and ,since it did not "render the risk more hazardous,"the policy stood firm.
Not that the companies always lost .Some of the insured did lie ,and thus concealed facts that increased the risk.Some litigants were blocked by language so clear that it passed the limits of interpretation;judges were willing to transmute the sense of English words,but only up to a point.The case law ,as in industrial accident law,was therefore chaotic and complex.No one could predict the outcome of a major lawsuit .Uncertainty invited more lawsuits.The insurance contract,especially insurance on lives ,is drawn up for one violent end.No single claim is worth the company's while to pay.Nor is the goodwill of the company enough reason for a widow to give up her claim on her husband's policy,when the company refuses to pay.
Meanwhile,states passed a torrent of statutes.Every aspect of the business was touched on by law . Some statutes plainly tried to benefit the companies,some the policy-holders;some compromised the interests of the two.On balance,however,regulation was unfriendly to the companies .Wisconsin,for example ,passed a law in 1870 requiring fire and marine insurance companies to keep strong reserves.The companies could not distribute profits until they had set aside'a sum equal to 100 percent of the premiums on unexpired policies."A Nebraska law (1889)required companies to pay off fire,tornado,and lightning insurance,at the value asserted by the policy ,which was to be "taken conclusively to be the ture value,"when the property,which was to be "taken conclusively to be the true value,"when the property was "wholly destroyed."

The companies contested many of these regulatory laws in court.They were not very often successful.One estimate is that the courts,between 1890 and 1908,found only one percent of 2,000 statutes unconstitutional.

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-5-31 20:27:32编辑过]

作者: 西门无忧 时间: 2005-6-1 01:33
<

>楼上的<

>几年没见了

作者: 蓝海风 时间: 2005-6-3 04:12

以下是引用西门无忧在2005-6-1 1:33:17的发言：
) x9 j: _( d: V0 U- j
0 V5 V6 U- J M# x<>楼上的7 }! [4 p) {8 F* K% e4 W
<>几年没见了

想我了?

作者: liugan816 时间: 2005-6-3 11:17
in English,are you ok ?

作者: 柠天欣 时间: 2005-6-22 23:13
这么多啊

作者: 桃子还西瓜 时间: 2005-7-18 17:43
I SEE~~

作者: 封子残 时间: 2005-7-19 16:45
can you tell me what is westgate on earth?

作者: yiyi* 时间: 2005-8-11 00:22
这样啊

作者: 虫虫危机 时间: 2005-8-11 00:27
我陪老婆水

欢迎光临下沙论坛 (http://bbs.xiasha.cn/)