◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys7.dxiong.com)(xys.ebookdiy.com)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇

支持《胡德胜关于杜朝阳先生对被疑抄袭之答复的解释》的一个观点

作者：约客

胡德胜文中提供的Salman文摘要：
It is 
commonly believed that only upstream riparians can 
harm downstream riparians by affecting the quantity or quality of water flow to them. 
It is 
not generally realized that downstream riparians can 
also harm upstream riparians by foreclosing 
their future uses of water through the 
prior use of, and the claiming of rights to such water.

胡德胜文中提供的杜钟文摘要：
It was 
commonly believed that only upstream riparians could 
harm downstream riparians by affecting the quantity or quality of water flow.
However, it was 
not generally realized that downstream riparians could 
also harm upstream riparians by depriving 
their future uses of water through the 
requirement to the prior use rights and water rights

以上两段英文分别有下列雷同处：6个词、12个词、6个词、5个词、7个词，
而不同之处只是is与was（两处）、can与could（两处）。不同的人写出如
此“相似”的段落，可能性的几率接近零。如果我自己的研究生这样写，我
绝对认为是抄袭！另外，可惜我的硕士生、博士生（211与985高校），都写
不出这种高水平的英语，尽管杜钟这段不是没有问题。

最后简单分析一下杜钟文摘要的英文。将Salman的is改为was，实际上杜钟文
认为commonly believed和generally realized都是过去的观点，而不是当
前的观点（即杜钟的观点不是新的）。自我否定，呵呵。另外，future uses
能被foreclose (shut out)，却不能被deprive (take away or withhold 
from).最后through the requirement to似乎是Chinglish，意思也不明了；
一句话，改写出错了。

(XYS20130124)

◇◇新语丝(www.xys.org)(xys7.dxiong.com)(xys.ebookdiy.com)(xys2.dropin.org)◇◇