issue110 ,历史类,naiba369等大人进

punkerzmUID: 195528

这是第二篇，与第一篇相比除了时间短了点感觉没啥进步

110."When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."

In this argument, the author provides two claims. The first one is that exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit, and the second one is that all historians are storytellers. I agree that exploring history is a creative enterprise, but I think it is an objective science basically. And I disagree with author’s second claim because the historians are largely different from the storytellers for their obligation and working.

The aim of the research of historians is to depict the scene which happened many years before and they must respect the historical fact. They can not create the history, but revert it with the help of a great amount of relics and files. Both the book of the storytellers and the historians can provide us something interested about the history, but the first one is combined with the fact and the fiction. The storytellers would not be responsible for their works because they are produced with imagination from the beginning. Historians, on the contrast, must provide people effective evidences to support their arguments, otherwise their outcome of the study will always be considered as a hypothesis. Thus we can conclude that the history is an objective science that emphasizes the demonstration.

Recently, a famous Chinese writer named Jin Yong, who has written several salable historical fictions, is dismissed from the history professor in a university. The university that engaged him for his reputation ultimately finds that he is not fit to a historian. Obviously, the working manner of the historian is different from the one of the novelist or the storyteller. Admittedly, the storytellers sometimes also study the history, but in order to make the reader attracted, they always write or tell their stories with imagination and exaggeration. On the other hand, the historians have to collect a lot of data and documents, analyze and synthesis these materials and draw some conclusions. This process is constructed on the facts that actually happened before. As long as some historian could provide any evidence to prove that the former theories are inaccurate, the history book will be rewritten.

It is undoubtedly that there exist some relations between the storyteller and the historian. The storytellers’ works would be helpful for the historian to do their research. Marco Polo, who wrote his travel notes in fat east and his book conduce to the study of the history of China, should be considered as a storyteller not a historian. In the same way, people also can use the myths to study the ancient history and culture, but we can not regard Homer as a historian.

To sum up, history is more complex and comprehensive than just a "story-telling", correspondingly, historian is more than a story-teller, instead they have much to concern about and need to know much: a great historian are not only a experienced writer but also a disinterested scientist and a perspicacious sociologist.

鬼谷子UID: 159645

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=250879
你们两个可以互改一下

naiba369UID: 131655

naiba369等大人进

怕怕，共同进步吧

在者会让别人不舒服的

naiba369UID: 131655

说明一下
1。红色，表示“错误”
2。洋红，表示“用法欠妥当”
3。蓝色，是我的批注
4。绿色，表示“很精彩的文字”


110."When we concern ourselves with the study of history, we become storytellers. Because we can never know the past directly but must construct it by interpreting evidence, exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit. All historians are storytellers."

In this argument 这个词我个人感觉不好，可以换成statement，assertion什么的, the author provides two claimsclaim这个词具体我拿不准，但我感觉不是很恰当，像reason我觉得就很fit，也不是词越难越好，关键是要“准确”，如果你的英文功力还不是很高. The first one is that exploring history is more of a creative enterprise than it is an objective pursuit 不通。改为：The first one is that exploring history is just like a creative enterprise rather than an objective pursuit 如何？, and the second one 这里你把one 用了2次，我个人感觉有点重复的感觉。建议前面的那个用reason什么的，后面的这个再用one is that all historians are storytellers. I agree that exploring history is a creative enterprise indeed, but I think it is an objective science 这里用science替换pursuit 感觉不是很好，pursuit 更强调一种精神层面的追求的意味，而science感觉有点偏了，用task成不？ basically. And I disagree with author’s second claim because the historians are largely different from the storytellers for their obligation and working. 改成：quite different from storytellers as their obligation and working to a most extent 可否？小结：1。从整理题目的逻辑入手，然后再分别表态，思路挺好的。但给人一种argument开头的感觉，不知道对改卷人的印象是好还是坏。2。具体用词，在开始限时写的时候，的确，很难用的很准，但限时写作完毕后，可以自己先改改，挑挑刺，慢慢的就成自然了，关键是先培养“准确用词”的意识，成为习惯要通过长时间积累的，短时间很难做到用词的生动，但”准确“基本靠这后面的日子可以做到。3。关于用词，不要怕用很常见的词，比如你用claim，但我想reason更好些，关键是要”准确“，其实主流老米的媒体用词都是很浅显易懂的，文字的最基本用途还是思想的”载体“。

The aim of the research of historians is The duty of the historian is to depict the scene which happened many years before agoand they must should respect the historical fact. They can not create the history, but revert it with the help of a great amount of relics and files. Both the book of the storytellers books written by… and the historians can provide us something interested provide sb.with sth.没有你的那种用法 about the history, but the first one is combined with the fact and the fiction. The storytellers would not be responsible for their works because they are produced with imagination from the beginning just because those books are full of invents with little reliability from the very beginning to the end. Historians, on the contrast, must 改成will如何？must 太过于”绝对化“了，而这对于AW而言是个问题，至少从语言上要表现出“思考的完整性”，话不能说的太绝对了 provide people effective evidences to support their arguments statements, otherwise their outcome of the study will they are always be considered as a 前面是“their outcomes” hypothesis. Thus we can conclude that the history is an objective science that emphasizes the demonstration.

Recently, a famous Chinese writer named Jin Yong, who has written several salable historical fictions, is dismissed from the history professor in a university. The university that engaged him for his reputation ultimately finds that he is not fit to a historian.1.例子不是很好，不是很fit的那种，逻辑漏洞很多。2。与具体事实也不符，让他当的是文学的prof吧 3。举例后没有针对本例子做具体的分析，显的很无说服力。强拉硬撤你也要把”例子“往你的ts句上”靠套“，这个工作就是举例后面的分析。没有分析，只是例子的堆砌很没意思的。Obviously, the working manner of the historian is different from the one of the novelist or the storyteller. Admittedly, the storytellers sometimes also study the history, but in order to make the reader attracted attract readers’ attention, they always 这里去掉，最后面加上个限定语write or tell their stories with imagination and exaggeration. On the other hand, the historians have to collect a lot of data and documents, analyze and synthesis these materials and draw some conclusions. This process is constructed on the facts that actually happened before. As long as some historian could provide any evidence to prove that the former theories are inaccurate, the history book will be rewritten.

It is undoubtedly that there exist exists some relations between the storyteller and the historian. The storytellers’ works would may be helpful for the historian to do their research. Marco Polo, who wrote his travel notes in fat far east and his book conduce to the study of the history of China, should be considered as a storyteller not a historian. 这个例子很不错，就是你的逻辑不是很条理，表述的不是太好，也不是很深入In the same way, people also can use the myths to study the ancient history and culture, but we can not regard Homer as a historian.这里不展开太可惜了，从5分就调到4。5 了。要注意：对你例子的展开与分析，可以让你的body更”厚实“，建议不要将汉语的文风带到这里来，对于汉语我们自可以随心所欲，神游八极，但是，对于英文，在不是很强的前提下，先从基础做吧。

To sum up, history is more complex and comprehensive than just a "story-telling" history is far more than “story-telling”英文里有引号的用法吗？我不确定,they are complex and comprehensive. correspondingly, historian is more than a story-teller, instead 加个“，”they have much to concern about and need to know much: a great historian are not only a experienced writer but also a disinterested scientist and a perspicacious sociologist.

总结：
1。感觉不是很好，还不如第一篇呢，从某种程度上讲。
2。语法错误不少，还有打字的错误，这种低级错误尽量避免。
3。论述的不够深入，光看你486个字，就觉得有点浅了。最好在550左右。
4。有些该深入的地方，你确戛然而止，不知为何？
5。段分的有点多了，给人的感觉是每个body都很单薄。

要加油了，

P.S.
如果说的重了，请包涵。你是什么时候考呢？

naiba369UID: 131655

看看这个链接

https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=250966

里面就提到了issue110，还有些思路方面的问题，从后面看