首都圏の私立大学でもっとも難易度の高い英語を出題する慶應義塾大学では、小手先のテクニックは一切通用しません。 単純に熟語を当てはめれば答が出る問題、単語の意味さえ知っていれば何とかなる問題はほとんどゼロに等しく、 英文そのものを正確に読解できているかどうかが問われます。慶應のように難解な英文を出題する学校を受けるのであれば、フィーリングで読んでいてはダメ。英文法のルールに則って理詰めで読解できるように、 英語の読解方法そのものを変えていく必要があります。 もし「自分はフィーリングで読める」と思っている人がいたら、 次の英文を和訳してみてください。 Frank talks between young people and people who are older than their parents are often prevented from going smoothly by the thing that is called generation gap. もし、最初のFrankが人名で主語に見えていたり、その次のtalksが動詞に見えているなら、まったく読めていません。
The world is becoming more and more homogeneous for many complex reasons but chiefly because of increased communications and machine-driven standardization. (1)We have to look hard for manners that will shock us these days, not only because we have seen or heard of most of them already, but because there are fewer and fewer varieties to view. It is common knowledge that our own ancestors used to have very different ―― and much cruder ―― table manners from (a)those we practise today. We have “come on,” in other words; we have “progressed.” The simplest historical novel or movie can make an exotic effect by presenting a scene in which dinner guests gnaw meat straight off bones gripped in their greasy fists, then hurl the remains into the corners of the room. These were the manners of the past, before we became modern and civilized. Manners have indeed changed. They were not invented on the spot, but developed into the system to which we now conform. Since manners are rituals and therefore conservative, they change slowly if at all, and useally in the face of long and widespread un willingness. Even when a new way of doing things has been adopted by a powerful elite group ―― using forks instead of fingers, for example ―― (2)it may take decades, even centuries, for people generally to decide to follow suit.
930 :名無し生涯学習:2015/08/22(土) 11:29:44.73
Forks had not only to be seen in use and their advantages successfully argued; they had also to be made and sold, then produced in versions which more and more people could afford, as they slowly ceased being merely unnecessary and became the mark of civilized behaviour. After the eleventh-century date of the first extant document describing (with wonder) the sight of someone using one, the fork took eight centuries to become a utensil employed universally in the West. Naturally enough, historians interest themselves in why such a change ―― from eating with our hands to using a metal mediating instrument instead ―― took place at all. In our more thoughtful moments, we no longer allow ourselves to feel, simply and happily, that what has happened is “progress,” that the eight centuries were an apprenticeship, a preparation for the attainment of our present enlightened state. Our own culture, as it happens, provides us with a means of tracing his development, through the survival of books on etiquette that have appeared through the ages. These humble, mostly dully written little pamphlets can be studied and compared, so as to document shifts in table manners and etiquette in general.
931 :名無し生涯学習:2015/08/22(土) 11:32:45.23
Manners books have supplied the sociologist Norbert Elias with data upon which he has built a coherent theory of the development of Western inhibitions since the Renaissance. Elians claims that momentous changes began in our history at (b)that point ―― specifically from 1530, the date at which Erasmus published his short treatise on manners, which he called de civilitate morum puerilium (On the Civility of the Behavior of Boys).
The world is becoming more and more homogeneous for many complex reasons but chiefly because of increased communications and machine-driven standardization. (1)We have to look hard for manners that will shock us these days, not only because we have seen or heard of most of them already, but because there are fewer and fewer varieties to view. It is common knowledge that our own ancestors used to have very different ―― and much cruder ―― table manners from (a)those we practise today. We have “come on,” in other words; we have “progressed.” The simplest historical novel or movie can make an exotic effect by presenting a scene in which dinner guests gnaw meat straight off bones gripped in their greasy fists, then hurl the remains into the corners of the room. These were the manners of the past, before we became modern and civilized. Manners have indeed changed. They were not invented on the spot, but developed into the system to which we now conform. Since manners are rituals and therefore conservative, they change slowly if at all, and useally in the face of long and widespread un willingness. Even when a new way of doing things has been adopted by a powerful elite group ―― using forks instead of fingers, for example ―― (2)it may take decades, even centuries, for people generally to decide to follow suit.
951 :名無し生涯学習:2015/08/22(土) 20:29:28.20
Forks had not only to be seen in use and their advantages successfully argued; they had also to be made and sold, then produced in versions which more and more people could afford, as they slowly ceased being merely unnecessary and became the mark of civilized behaviour. After the eleventh-century date of the first extant document describing (with wonder) the sight of someone using one, the fork took eight centuries to become a utensil employed universally in the West. Naturally enough, historians interest themselves in why such a change ―― from eating with our hands to using a metal mediating instrument instead ―― took place at all. In our more thoughtful moments, we no longer allow ourselves to feel, simply and happily, that what has happened is “progress,” that the eight centuries were an apprenticeship, a preparation for the attainment of our present enlightened state. Our own culture, as it happens, provides us with a means of tracing his development, through the survival of books on etiquette that have appeared through the ages. These humble, mostly dully written little pamphlets can be studied and compared, so as to document shifts in table manners and etiquette in general.
952 :名無し生涯学習:2015/08/22(土) 20:33:16.61
On Thursday, the two sides traded artillery fire over the demilitarized zone -- though no casualties were reported by either side.
READ: Korean rivals face off
Pyongyang hasn't explained its part in the incident, but a statement last week from the state-run KCNA new agency accused South Korea of committing a "military provocation."
Seoul, meanwhile, has accused the North of planting landmines deliberately in the path of its patrols in the demilitarized zone after two soldiers were seriously wounded earlier this month. North Korea has denied the allegation.
And if this wasn't enough, a massive military exercise involving South Korea, the United States and a host of other allies is underway, which North Korea says it views as a prelude to an invasion. It has threatened to retaliate against the U.S. "with tremendous muscle."
According to the U.S. military, the purpose of the multinational exercise -- named Ulchi Freedom Guardian -- is "to enhance ... readiness, protect the region and maintain stability on the Korean peninsula."
953 :名無し生涯学習:2015/08/22(土) 20:36:06.84
Should we be worried about this latest escalation? Tensions between the two neighbors -- who are technically still at war -- ebb and flow. Earlier this year, an annual exercise between South Korean and U.S. forces, involving thousands of troops and state of the art military hardware, didn't go down well with North Korea. It fired two short-range ballistic missiles into the East Sea, also known as the Sea of Japan, after slamming the exercises as "dangerous nuclear war drills for invading the DPRK."
Leader Kim Jong Un then called for full combat readiness and oversaw military facilities, according to KCNA.
954 :名無し生涯学習:2015/08/22(土) 20:36:21.06
"The North Koreans, being paranoid in their own way, have always had this concern: 'If there is going to be an invasion, this would be the time,'" said Philip Yun, executive director of the Ploughshares Fund, a group that advocates nuclear disarmament. "But that's not the intent on the U.S.-South Korean side."
Is N. Korea's threat to attack US just more bluster?
Is N. Korea's threat to attack US just more bluster? 01:45 This time around, North Korea appeared to shoot at loudspeakers the South had set up along the DMZ blaring out propaganda in the wake of the landmines incident, prompting a retaliation from South Korean forces. Pyongyang had previously threatened to blow up the speakers and warned of "indiscriminate strikes."
"North Korea is especially sensitive about propaganda from South Korea," explained CNN's Seoul producer, KJ Kwon. "They've even shot at balloons carrying leaflets critical of Pyongyang that activists have floated across the border."
955 :名無し生涯学習:2015/08/22(土) 20:39:03.33
Unlikely. North Korea usually responds to "provocations" such as military drills with angry rhetoric and perhaps a weapons test. Messages of impending doom and the firing of short-range rockets or missiles into the sea tend to become routine as the military exercises approach. "Their response is carefully calculated to convey a particular message," said Kwon.
And that message is not always intended for its enemies abroad.
According to Yun of the Ploughshares Fund, playing up the threat from the U.S. helps the North Korean leadership's propaganda efforts to control the population of the isolated nation.
Tensions rising in Korean peninsula
Tensions rising in Korean peninsula 02:01 For now, the North is unlikely to push things any further. "According to analysts in South Korea, they might move massive numbers of troops closer to the border and then retreat, just as a provocation," said Kwon.
The world is becoming more and more homogeneous for many complex reasons but chiefly because of increased communications and machine-driven standardization. (1)We have to look hard for manners that will shock us these days, not only because we have seen or heard of most of them already, but because there are fewer and fewer varieties to view. It is common knowledge that our own ancestors used to have very different ―― and much cruder ―― table manners from (a)those we practise today. We have “come on,” in other words; we have “progressed.” The simplest historical novel or movie can make an exotic effect by presenting a scene in which dinner guests gnaw meat straight off bones gripped in their greasy fists, then hurl the remains into the corners of the room. These were the manners of the past, before we became modern and civilized. Manners have indeed changed. They were not invented on the spot, but developed into the system to which we now conform. Since manners are rituals and therefore conservative, they change slowly if at all, and useally in the face of long and widespread un willingness. Even when a new way of doing things has been adopted by a powerful elite group ―― using forks instead of fingers, for example ―― (2)it may take decades, even centuries, for people generally to decide to follow suit.
958 :名無し生涯学習:2015/08/22(土) 20:55:37.09
Forks had not only to be seen in use and their advantages successfully argued; they had also to be made and sold, then produced in versions which more and more people could afford, as they slowly ceased being merely unnecessary and became the mark of civilized behaviour. After the eleventh-century date of the first extant document describing (with wonder) the sight of someone using one, the fork took eight centuries to become a utensil employed universally in the West. Naturally enough, historians interest themselves in why such a change ―― from eating with our hands to using a metal mediating instrument instead ―― took place at all. In our more thoughtful moments, we no longer allow ourselves to feel, simply and happily, that what has happened is “progress,” that the eight centuries were an apprenticeship, a preparation for the attainment of our present enlightened state. Our own culture, as it happens, provides us with a means of tracing his development, through the survival of books on etiquette that have appeared through the ages. These humble, mostly dully written little pamphlets can be studied and compared, so as to document shifts in table manners and etiquette in general.
959 :名無し生涯学習:2015/08/22(土) 20:58:55.04
On Thursday, the two sides traded artillery fire over the demilitarized zone -- though no casualties were reported by either side.
READ: Korean rivals face off
Pyongyang hasn't explained its part in the incident, but a statement last week from the state-run KCNA new agency accused South Korea of committing a "military provocation."
Seoul, meanwhile, has accused the North of planting landmines deliberately in the path of its patrols in the demilitarized zone after two soldiers were seriously wounded earlier this month. North Korea has denied the allegation.
And if this wasn't enough, a massive military exercise involving South Korea, the United States and a host of other allies is underway, which North Korea says it views as a prelude to an invasion. It has threatened to retaliate against the U.S. "with tremendous muscle."
According to the U.S. military, the purpose of the multinational exercise -- named Ulchi Freedom Guardian -- is "to enhance ... readiness, protect the region and maintain stability on the Korean peninsula."
The world is becoming more and more homogeneous for many complex reasons but chiefly because of increased communications and machine-driven standardization. (1)We have to look hard for manners that will shock us these days, not only because we have seen or heard of most of them already, but because there are fewer and fewer varieties to view. It is common knowledge that our own ancestors used to have very different ―― and much cruder ―― table manners from (a)those we practise today. We have “come on,” in other words; we have “progressed.” The simplest historical novel or movie can make an exotic effect by presenting a scene in which dinner guests gnaw meat straight off bones gripped in their greasy fists, then hurl the remains into the corners of the room. These were the manners of the past, before we became modern and civilized. Manners have indeed changed. They were not invented on the spot, but developed into the system to which we now conform. Since manners are rituals and therefore conservative, they change slowly if at all, and useally in the face of long and widespread un willingness. Even when a new way of doing things has been adopted by a powerful elite group ―― using forks instead of fingers, for example ―― (2)it may take decades, even centuries, for people generally to decide to follow suit.