nipponman Posted June 13, 2005 at 01:30 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 at 01:30 AM Hey guys, how do you say, "We walked and talked for over an hour."? I'm not sure how to get the duration expression in here. Would 我們走也談一個鐘頭以上的話 be close? Any help would be appreciated. nipponman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiaomawang Posted June 13, 2005 at 01:36 AM Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 at 01:36 AM I would say 我們邊走邊聊/談了一個多小時. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi Posted June 13, 2005 at 05:21 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 at 05:21 PM I would say 我們邊走邊聊/談了一個多小時. Maybe it's just my preference, but I would add "一" in front of both "邊"s. edit: I came up with some alternatives based upon xiaomawang's suggestion, they may not be as "fluidic" though. 我們一邊走，一邊談/聊了一個多小時這樣. 我們一個多小時一邊聊/談，一邊走路。 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zypherray Posted June 13, 2005 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted June 13, 2005 at 08:21 PM Maybe it's just my preference' date=' but I would add "一" in front of both "邊"s. edit: I came up with some alternatives based upon xiaomawang's suggestion, they may not be as "fluidic" though. 我們一邊走，一邊談/聊了一個多小時這樣. 我們一個多小時一邊聊/談，一邊走路。[/quote'] 我們一個多小時一邊聊/談，一邊走路。<------This translation isn't correct grammatically in Chinese.I personally prefer 我們一邊走，一邊談/聊了一個多小時. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cat_star Posted June 14, 2005 at 12:19 AM Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 at 12:19 AM Yes, you can say:"我们边走边聊了1个多小时。" sorry, we usually use simplified character in Beijing. so i'm not sure whether you can understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi Posted June 14, 2005 at 10:04 AM Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 at 10:04 AM 我們一個多小時一邊聊/談，一邊走路。<------This translation isn't correct grammatically in Chinese.I personally prefer 我們一邊走，一邊談/聊了一個多小時. Yeah, the more I say it in my head the less it makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipponman Posted June 14, 2005 at 10:49 AM Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 at 10:49 AM Ok, thanks so far. Quick question though, what does the 一 mean/do? because I just looked it up and 邊 can be used on its own. So 一 must change the meaning somehow, right? nipponman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylee Posted June 14, 2005 at 01:45 PM Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 at 01:45 PM So 一 must change the meaning somehow, right? I don't think so. 邊走邊唱 = 一邊走一邊唱 邊走邊聊 = 一邊走一邊聊 btw 好容易 = 好不容易 flammable = inflammable ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipponman Posted June 14, 2005 at 10:18 PM Author Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 at 10:18 PM I don't think so. 邊走邊唱 = 一邊走一邊唱 邊走邊聊 = 一邊走一邊聊 Ok, thanks, just checkin'. btw 好容易 = 好不容易 flammable = inflammable huh? What does flammable have to do with 好容易, and how does flammable = inflammable? nipponman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skylee Posted June 14, 2005 at 11:16 PM Report Share Posted June 14, 2005 at 11:16 PM What does flammable have to do with 好容易, and how does flammable = inflammable? Sorry, 好容易 has nothing to do with flammable. I meant to say that adding a character (一/不) doesn't necessary change the meaning. Sometimes, the meaning remains the same even with a character/prefix which appears to mean the opposite. It appears that my examples were bad since you didn't get it. So isn't "flammable" the same as "inflammable"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipponman Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:18 AM Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:18 AM Sorry, 好容易 has nothing to do with flammable. I meant to say that adding a character (一/不) doesn't necessary change the meaning. Sometimes, the meaning remains the same even with a character/prefix which appears to mean the opposite. It appears that my examples were bad since you didn't get it. Oh, ok. I was wondering why my dictionary said "see 好不容易" when I looked up 好容易. Your examples were good, (well, except the english one:D ) but I didn't know what 好容易 meant, that's all. So isn't "flammable" the same as "inflammable"? Nope. flammable = 某東西能被燒。 inflammable =某東西不能被燒。 nipponman P.s. Just in case that is not correct chinese, flammable = something that can catch fire, inflammable = something that cannot catch fire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roddy Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:23 AM Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:23 AM inflammable = something that cannot catch fire 没那么容易 inflammable and flammable mean the same thing. Best practice is to use non-flammable for things that don't catch fire easily, flammable for things that do, and avoid inflammable altogether, because it's a stupid word. Roddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipponman Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:35 AM Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:35 AM Ya' know, I just looked it up. And you were right skylee. inflammable = flammable. Though I don't understand how, through the logical course of time, inflammable does not equal non-flammable, because, the prefixe in- = the prefix non-! e.g. indescribable = not describable = undescribable. That is a wierd word, which I, strangely enough, use all the time and just assume at its logical meaning. I can't wait to trick some of my family members with this one! nipponman P.s. thanks for the link roddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipponman Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:41 AM Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:41 AM thanks to this site http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/flammable.html I now understand that inflammables' "in-" prefix come from the word inflame, which makes much more sense now. But still, reading this http://explosives.nic.in/inflammable.htm is still so funny to me: An Act to declare certain substances to be dangerously inflammable and to provide of the regulation of their import, transport, storage and production by applying thereto the Petroleum Act, 1934, and the rules there under and for certain matters connected with such regulation... How can something be "dangerously inflammable?" That sounds funny. maybe it is the same with 好容易? nipponman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roddy Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:50 AM Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 at 11:50 AM I'd guess if it is dangerously inflammable it means it can catch fire easily, and is likely to go out of control - ie wood is inflammable, but it's not likely to blow up in your face if you accidentally drop a cigarette on it. Petrol, meanwhile . . . I know that English is meant to be a language borne of a mixture of Romance and Anglo-saxon tongues, with a smattering of global vocabulary for spice. But sometimes, I just think it was put together by malicious monkeys, out to trick us . . . Roddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipponman Posted June 15, 2005 at 12:45 PM Author Report Share Posted June 15, 2005 at 12:45 PM I know that English is meant to be a language borne of a mixture of Romance and Anglo-saxon tongues, with a smattering of global vocabulary for spice. But sometimes, I just think it was put together by malicious monkeys, out to trick us . . . LOL ! I'd guess if it is dangerously inflammable it means it can catch fire easily, and is likely to go out of control - ie wood is inflammable, but it's not likely to blow up in your face if you accidentally drop a cigarette on it. Petrol, meanwhile . . . I see what you're saying, but saying wood is inflammable is, well, gonna take some getting used to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and select your username and password later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.