PSLE Chinese - General Discussion
-
P5G:
i think your answer is not acceptable. From the context, the owner is not unreasonable in not allowing them in, because its not his obligation (its his house he has the right to refuse visitors). But if he is understanding (ming li) then he will do it.Please help.
Q8.
http://www.orlesson.org/orp/09Ch/P5-H_Chinese-SA1-KongHwa.pdf
“要是主人不Q8 道理，怎么办？”第二个人说。
My answer: 明理 . Worksheet answer:讲理
Is my answer acceptable?
TIA. -
CoffeeCat:
i think your answer is not acceptable. From the context, the owner is not unreasonable in not allowing them in, because its not his obligation (its his house he has the right to refuse visitors). But if he is understanding (ming li) then he will do it.P5G:
Please help.
Q8.
http://www.orlesson.org/orp/09Ch/P5-H_Chinese-SA1-KongHwa.pdf
“要是主人不Q8 道理，怎么办？”第二个人说。
My answer: 明理 . Worksheet answer:讲理
Is my answer acceptable?
TIA.
Mr Coffeecat,
How about if we will to look at what the next person was saying, will 明理 be acceptable?
“要是主人不Q8 道理，怎么办？”第二个人说。
“我们又不是要拿他的财物，只是躲雨罢了。…….” -
hmm oh my god i misread your post lol.
hmm i guess your answer should be quite acceptable. Better to confirm with your chinese teacher! -
P5G:
Hi,Please help.
Q8.
http://www.orlesson.org/orp/09Ch/P5-H_Chinese-SA1-KongHwa.pdf
“要是主人不Q8 道理，怎么办？”第二个人说。
My answer: 明理 . Worksheet answer:讲理
Is my answer acceptable?
TIA.
I think your answer is not acceptable. Where Chinese is concerned, there is this thing called '语感'. It's something intuitive, and your answer '明理' does not quite fit in.
‘明理’is often used between people who are close or familiar with one another, within a domestic quarrel. In this case, the owner and the 'intruders' are not familiar with one another. It doesn't fit in well to use '明理'. Although it means 'being understanding' in English, and we may use 'understanding' in the English context, but it just doesn't sit well in the Chinese context. It sounds contrived.
The above explanation does not come from any dictionary. It's just how I feel why it doesn't fit in if you really want an explanation. -
P5G:
Please help.
Q8.
http://www.orlesson.org/orp/09Ch/P5-H_Chinese-SA1-KongHwa.pdf
“要是主人不Q8 道理，怎么办？”第二个人说。
My answer: 明理 . Worksheet answer:讲理
Is my answer acceptable?
TIA.
如果屋主明理，他一定会让我们避雨。
如果屋主讲理，他一定会让我们避雨。
As mentioned by Coffeecat, there is absolutely no reason for the owner to 讲理, so by default 明理 is more appropriate, isn't it?
It is just my personal view. For further discussions please. -
I think because the sentence concerned is preceded by the dialogue ("he will only let us in if we are courteous"), it should be followed by "jiang li" (i.e. jiang dao li").
In a way, to be "ming li", you don’t really need the three friends to be courteous. If a person is "ming li", he understands the situation (ming bai shi li).
My two cents. -
lI is right that the 3 guys have to be courteous and 讲理.
But for the house owner, he does not need to 讲理, he only needs to 明理 to let them into the house. (Better still if the house owner 讲理. So 讲理 should be acceptable.)
Does it sound logical?
Enjoy your weekends. -
Put it another way. Just because the owner is empathetic (ming li) doesn’t mean he is open to discussion or negotiation (jiang li). The three friends need the owner to be "jiang li" to allow them into the house.
-
I really like the discussion here on \"讲理\" and \"明理\" and would like to offer my view.
To me, when using \"讲理\", it suggests that there is a disagreement or dispute at hand. Example:
罗马尼亚前公使约内斯库是一个不讲理的无赖，明明是他醉酒开车撞死人不肯承认，竟然还指责我国政府陷害他！
I think the person who wrote this short passage wanted us to interpret what the second person said as \"what if despite we ask the house owner in a very polite manner, but the house owner still refuse to let us in ? and given that there are no other places to take shelter from the rain, isn't the house owner very unreasonable ?\"
要是我们很有礼貌地向房子的主人请求，他还是不肯让我们进去，这附近又没有别的地方可以让我们避雨，那么这房子的主人不是很不讲理吗？
If we (reader of this passage) agree with the second person's worry, anticipate the house owner being unreasonable, then \"讲理\" is the answer.
However, as noted by the posters before, we know our legal rights very well, and if we apply this legal knowledge into the story, the owner of the house has the right to deny anyone from entering his private property, therefore there is no room for any \"reasoning\" or \"理\" to be \"讲\" here. This is why we questioned whether \"讲理\" a suitable answer or not.
Perhaps this is due to culture difference ? In other counties, I think it is very rude for a person to refuse helping another person. There is no reason not to help when someone is in trouble. However, in Singapore, we tend to think our rights come first.
My answer to P5G's original question of whether \"明理\" is acceptable, I think it is. If we felt that the owner has the absolute right to refuse the three persons from entering his house, there is no \"理\" to be \"讲\", then we could only hope that the house owner is sensible and understanding - thus \"明(白)(道)理\".
In conclusion, if I am the marker and any student give either \"讲理\" or \"明理\", I will accept (because \"我是一个明理的人\"
)
In fact, other than \"讲理\" and \"明理\", I still have one more probable answer - \"http://www.nciku.cn/search/zh/detail/%E9%80%9A%E6%83%85%E8%BE%BE%E7%90%86/66525\". If we are not restricted to replace a two word answer for a two word question, this maybe a better choice.
Why ? To allow some strangers to enter your house under this circumstance, it involves some \"情\" (sympathy, compassion). The house owner may say this:
\"我们素不相识，按理我是不用开门给你们进来的。但是我同情你们的处境，就让你们进来等雨停了才走吧！\"
Last but not least, if I am the person who set the paper, I would change the passage like this:
他们看见前面有一间房子，喜出望外①，马上一起商议②，讨论怎样才能进去那间房子避雨。
“我们要很有礼貌，人家才会开门让我们进去。”第一个人说。
“要是那间房子的主人还是不肯③ ，怎么办？”第二个人问。
“我们又不是要拿他的财物，只是躲雨罢了。雨停了，我们就走。我想他应该不会这么不通情达理吧？④”第三个人说。
突然，狂风大作，下起雨来了。他们即刻拔腿奔向那间房子去⑤，那间房子的门就在这时被风吹开。只见房子里空空的，原来是一间空房子。
① they will be so happy to see a house in front;
② don't need to call an emergency meeting, just discuss;
③ this is the part that cause the confusion, there is no reason to doubt a person you have not met before will be unreasonable or not, simply refuse will be sufficient;
④ adding this will make the third person's speech more complete;
⑤ the rain is coming, where are they running to ? not logical to ran away from the house right ? must run towards the house instead; -
Thanks. Ms Nan.nan.
I am glad to hear that my answer is acceptable and Brother Tang has not wasted his effort to argue for the case. Thanks once again.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login