Comments on: “Include”和“etc.”为什么不应该一起用呢？（续） http://www.angryeditor.com/2010/01/26/include-etc/ Wed, 11 Jan 2012 16:04:55 +0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: Angry Editor http://www.angryeditor.com/2010/01/26/include-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-444 Angry Editor Sat, 15 May 2010 10:20:26 +0000 http://www.angryeditor.com/?p=331#comment-444 This sounds like legal speak. The phrase "but is not limited to" is used precisely because there is a lack of clarity about the word "include"; it is used for those that think "include" implies that the list has no other items, to prevent them from thinking that the company will not provide any more services. Does this help? This sounds like legal speak. The phrase “but is not limited to” is used precisely because there is a lack of clarity about the word “include”; it is used for those that think “include” implies that the list has no other items, to prevent them from thinking that the company will not provide any more services. Does this help?

]]> By: 507 http://www.angryeditor.com/2010/01/26/include-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-440 507 Thu, 13 May 2010 12:42:29 +0000 http://www.angryeditor.com/?p=331#comment-440 刚在S&P网站上看到下面这句话： Ongoing interaction includes, but is not limited to, recurrent operating or capital subsidies, access to preferential funding, monopoly powers, favorable government contracts, and sympathetic regulatory regimes, price ceilings, risky project mandates, and directives to provide loss-making goods and services. 想请教Webb大哥中间那句"but is not limited to"是不是多余的呢？ 刚在S&P网站上看到下面这句话：
Ongoing interaction includes, but is not limited to, recurrent operating or capital subsidies, access to preferential funding, monopoly powers, favorable government contracts, and sympathetic regulatory regimes, price ceilings, risky project mandates, and directives to provide loss-making goods and services.
想请教Webb大哥中间那句”but is not limited to”是不是多余的呢？

]]> By: 小骆驼商队 http://www.angryeditor.com/2010/01/26/include-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-330 小骆驼商队 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:55:56 +0000 http://www.angryeditor.com/?p=331#comment-330 我一直以为 such as 引出的是不完整的列表，而 include 引出的可能是完整的，也可能是不完整的。如果 include 后面只有一个项目，那显然是不完整的列表；如果 include 后面有好几个项目，我很可能就会以为那是完整列表了，为了安全起见，还是加个 etc. 好啊。也许我的这个感觉是错的吧。 我觉得还有一点值得强调的是 etc. 后面应该有个点号，如果放在句末的话看不出来，放在句中就很明显了。 你觉得 etc. 丑的话，那 et cetera 怎么样？ :) 我一直以为 such as 引出的是不完整的列表，而 include 引出的可能是完整的，也可能是不完整的。如果 include 后面只有一个项目，那显然是不完整的列表；如果 include 后面有好几个项目，我很可能就会以为那是完整列表了，为了安全起见，还是加个 etc. 好啊。也许我的这个感觉是错的吧。

我觉得还有一点值得强调的是 etc. 后面应该有个点号，如果放在句末的话看不出来，放在句中就很明显了。

你觉得 etc. 丑的话，那 et cetera 怎么样？ :)

]]> By: Elaine http://www.angryeditor.com/2010/01/26/include-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-325 Elaine Sun, 07 Feb 2010 03:22:56 +0000 http://www.angryeditor.com/?p=331#comment-325 你的中文居然可以这么棒 你的中文居然可以这么棒

]]>