issue48 创造历史之伟人Vs.凡人 精干文章+超详细讨论

lakeqianUID：157560

晕倒。
大家占了座可要。。。

最初由 鬼谷子 发布
[B]B3应该是总结出你的观点了，但是你的BUT很突兀，至少跟B2的内容没有转折的关系。看了你后面几句知道你其实是在跟B1的内容转折[/B]

题目分成两部分。
B1 2 说明历史（确切说是重大事件）由人民决定，但是伟人有影响。
B3 开始说题目第二部分。历史研究只关注伟人的问题。But是指凡人创造历史但不受研究者重视的问题。

lakeqianUID：157560

up

gra cie0213UID：157500

Though the historical study is focused on the celebrities, controversy on who realize the events and trends is still going on. For my part, we should bear in mind that the determinant of history is the forgotten masses rather than the dominant figures,dominant figures和famous people是不是有些不同? but it is feasible to study only the celebrities rather than the masses.

History actually resided in the hands of the forgotten masses. Take delve into the World War II, what comes to our mind first is the celebrities as Roosevelt and the fellow generals who commanded the battle. However, just as a Chinese saying goes, the fame of the general is based on the casualty of the soldiers一将功成万骨枯的英文版？. What truly defeated the Japanese and Nazi Germany is the hundreds of aircraft carriers and tens of thousands of tanks manufactured by the workers and the death toll of the soldiers that mounted an even greater number. Without their blood and sweat, the generals alone could by no means fight against the foe. So, the war was indeed won by the toil of the workers who survived and the sacrifice of soldiers who died.

On the other hand, the function of the celebrity which should not be trivialized availed to the acceleration of the events. Looking into the One Hundred Years War, we observe that although the majority of French were only to to是不是要删了willing to drive away the British intruders and reoccupy their homeland, but they were hesitant and the wrath was not released until the 17 year old girl Joan of Arc stood out and mustered the people to fight for their own country. Though the French is destined to claim their own land, were it not for Joan of Arc, the victory would be postponed markedly. 这句语法有问题哦，这应该是和过去事实相反的虚拟条件句吧？

But, 这段的转折是对B1&B2的转折,但是上文刚好说的是名人的作用,和这段本质上没有冲突,所以感觉还是有点突兀,如果B1,B2总结之后再转折似乎更好? the pitiful truth is that the historical research is focused merely on several celebrity rather than the masses. It is somewhat reasonable but not justifiable. We already know that the determinant of history is the masses, but due to the great number of the ordinary people, it is impossible to identify, record and examine what every one of them thought and did, while the celebrities’ deeds are easy to observe. So, practically, historians always study only the contribution of the famous people which may to some extent representative the trend and masses.

We shall all remember that the determinant of history is the forgotten masses and their unknown contribution but we can literally observe only the celebrities readily.

嘿,不好意思,拖了一天才帖上来.
对比了一下,发现原稿和修改稿差不多,我就在你的修改版改了
总体来说写得不错,结构很清晰,文字也很简洁,

lakeqianUID：157560

哦typo~~ only to[B]o [/B]  willing to
had it not been ...对吧。。。sorry照搬原句。没注意时态，gracie真是细心。小弟自叹不如。
这段的转折是对B1&B2的转折,但是上文刚好说的是名人的作用,和这段本质上没有冲突,所以感觉还是有点突兀,如果B1,B2总结之后再转折似乎更好?
嗯，看来大家都觉得这个转折有问题。。。改改。

mulberryUID：166159

看了真的很有收获，我是一只菜菜鱼，对你的文章也没有什么评论了，觉得语言很不错：）
文章还是要旁人指点一下的。
我现在的理解是：如果前提‘insignificant events是更广大的人民造就的rather than individuals‘成立，那么历史的研究是否应该不要再太强调individual了？
而我文章似乎在回应：通过individual研究历史的可行性。。。。。。。。。
不知道，说的对吗？还是有点糊涂。。。。。。

lakeqianUID：157560

如果前提‘insignificant events是更广大的人民造就的rather than individuals‘成立...不太懂什么意思。。。insignificant events？？逆命题与原命题的成立与否无关对吧？
而我文章似乎在回应：通过individual研究历史的可行性。。。。。。。。。
这个随便。看个人思路，柿子拣软的捏。另外，本题是客观型，不涉及可行性问题吧。

mulberryUID：166159

我被你问的越来越糊涂了·##￥%……
请你能不能在具体说一下，我的文章那一部分写偏了？

sunxinyUID：169326

lakeqian,不好意思啊, 你的这篇回复的人已经很多,大家已经提了不少建议, 我就不见帮你看了.