請高手替我分析這段的文法

Question

光照字面來看(姑且不管合不合理),這段可以有幾種完全合乎文法的正確說法? 並請解釋, 謝謝!This equipment shall cause no safety hazard which could reasonably be foreseen and which is not connected with its intended application , in normal condition and in single fault condition.

"不能分析的" 及 "口齒不清楚的" 這次請不要來攪局......下次一定歡迎!!!

Antonio: 就是你認為是只有一種完全合乎文法的說法? 還是有兩種? 三種? 這題我知道的至少有三種完全合乎文法的說法. 我想知道, 還有沒有我不知道的說法......

對不起 !!! 可能是我自己的口齒不清楚 :-D! 我是要看你怎麼分析這段的文法. 會不會翻譯沒有關係, 我的英文程度是八九不離十的尚可....

非常謝謝英版的高手賞光, 每一個人的答案都很精采 .我又只能選一個, 只好交給投票. 請投的人讀完所有的答案再投!!!!!! 在此順祝大家新年快樂..... 由衷的感激與慶幸能與你們在此相遇!!

Answer 1

翻譯（一）：This equipment shall cause no safety hazard （which could reasonably be foreseen and which is not connected with its intended application）, in normal condition and in single fault condition.這設備在正常與單一故障情況中應不造成任何可合理預知以及與原先所設計適用範圍不相關的安全性危險。 翻譯（二）：This equipment shall cause no safety hazard （which could reasonably be foreseen and which is not connected with its intended application, in normal condition and in single fault condition.）這設備應不造成任何可合理預知的安全性危險以及在正常與單一故障情況中與原先所設計適用範圍不相關的安全性危險。 翻譯（三）：This equipment shall cause no（（ safety hazard （which could reasonably be foreseen ）and which is not connected with its intended application））, in normal condition and in single fault condition.這設備在正常與單一故障情況中應不造成任何與原先所設計適用範圍不相關的可合理預知之安全性危險。 翻譯（四）：This equipment shall cause no（（ safety hazard （which could reasonably be foreseen ）and which is not connected with its intended application, in normal condition and in single fault condition.））這設備應不造成任何在正常與單一故障情況中與原先所設計適用範圍不相關的可合理預知之安全性危險。 

2006-01-21 10:00:10 補充：
看過自己所服務的公司被告過，深知律師的可怕@@,專鑽文法漏洞。

2006-01-21 10:12:56 補充：
如果我是告方律師，我會選（一）或（二）的文法翻譯。
但如果我是被告律師，我會選（三）或（四）的文法翻譯。

2006-01-22 16:06:31 補充：
Hey, Banff. Long time no talk.^_^
Looks like you've got quite a controversial topic here. Nevertheless, I offered my answer by looking into the possibility of how many ways this sentence can be read and interpreted.

2006-01-22 16:06:50 補充：
The correct interpretation could be just one, or it could be several. This all depends on how far we will go to divert the sentence/fact, like lawyers do in court. Otherwise how did OJ Simpson get away from Murder?!^0^

2006-01-25 04:39:53 補充：
I don't mind at all. It's ur question, therefore it's ur call.

2006-01-26 02:29:38 補充：
蛋頭～別走啊．．．．．
I am a big fan of your wits as well.
嗚～嗚～>_<

Answer 2

哇！這個離題的超厲害！
小妹佩服佩服！

恭喜發財啊～好運旺旺來呀～～～～:P

Answer 3

Saphi果然厲害，面面俱到了!
Egghead說的好，例子也舉的妙~~

Answer 4

Egghead: Appreciating your contribution to this K+, and your wits which give me at least 3 good laughs everyday (suppose this is a way of lengthens anyone's life), I don’t want to live a long life without seeing your “practical jokes” either.

2006-01-22 22:50:47 補充：
...continue

Therefore, it is every bit of my intention to keep you live and kicking. In the meantime, please take a good care of yourself, don’t drink and drive, and have your daily doze of vitamins…. :-D!!

2006-01-24 02:13:52 補充：
冰封玫瑰: I think OJ's case was not unique nor an isolated situation. There are tons of no name cases we just don't hear about. Don't you think in America everything is possible (especially if you have one hell of a good lawyer)?

However, your suggestion is well taken here!! Thank you!

2006-01-26 21:51:21 補充：
Egghead:
How shall we go on without you?
When the stage is so empty & bare,
With such an enormous emptiness all around!

2006-01-26 21:51:42 補充：
And if you decide to change your mind,
Then the curtain will be up;
The party will resume with its old fun…

(Please don’t make us sing “we are lonesome every night” :-)!)

Answer 5

既然已知這是安規的條文內容, 就應該以工商的角度來做適切的推敲, 而不要從其他像文學,法律等角度來想像它的本意. 甚至於文法分析也未必精準, 因為在個別習慣性的錯誤也許有些看不見得陷阱, 還是應該站在專業的制高點來看整段文章精義的全貌.在此我不得不嚴肅地說, 並沒有<幾種> 適當的看法. 最正確的解釋應該只有一種. 無論如何, 信雅達是被公認最客觀的評估標準.

2006-01-21 17:35:35 補充：
To Banff 大姊大大: 我沒不悅呀~~ :D 我也是很有風度的哩~~ 不必跟我道歉嚕. 就事論事咩. 跟私人交情無關, okay?

2006-01-26 03:13:08 補充：
Egghead: You are my sunshine, my only sunshine.u make me happy when skies are grey. U never know dear, how much I love ur wits. so please don't take my sunshine away!

Answer 6

請問有哪三種? 我以為這個話題已在另一個問題結束了咧.

2006-01-21 06:13:59 補充：
ok.. 想了幾次 還是有點不大清楚版大要問的是什麼...
不過我覺得的是這樣:

In normal condition and in single fault condition,
1.this equipment shall cause no safety hazard which could reasonably be foreseen.
2.this equipment shall cause no safety hazard which is not connected with its intended application.

"hazard which could be reasonably foreseen" 及 "hazard which is not connected with its intended application" 都是同時在normal & single fault condition 下. 這樣可以了我的意思嗎? 我覺得也可以這樣解釋吧. ??

2006-01-21 06:16:16 補充：
呵呵, 可是這種咬文嚼字的文句好像在法規條文裡常常看到.

Answer 7

我不是英文大濕，容我野人獻曝一下，我認為整句是This equipment shall cause no safety hazard (which could reasonably be foreseen) and (which is not connected with its intended application) , (in normal condition)and (in single fault condition.)我覺得他只是在講這四件事情，就像我說過他們大部分不是文學家，也許構造上看起來會很奇怪，偉大的物理學家霍普金先生是連話都講不清楚，不過官大學問大，他不寫一些看起來有學問一點你還不知道他官有多大。

2006-01-21 06:09:13 補充：
這個句子用我機器人的頭腦看起來滿清楚的，我會知道我要做什麼，這幾件事情就是用了太多的which與in，排列上也有點瑕疵，我不會這樣寫。

2006-01-21 06:14:47 補充：
"which is not connected with its intended application" 就是插錯了用錯地方也沒關係，譬如這溫度計是拿來量烤火雞溫度用的，可是你不小心拿去量小孩子體溫也不能造成危險，就是這樣的規定。

2006-01-21 06:20:09 補充：
我拿臉盆當安全帽用(in which, it is not the intended application)就會造成危險。

2006-01-22 20:00:12 補充：
Simple is beautiful and necessary, we have only one life to live, and i want to see everything before i die, im a straight person, it`s too hard for me to circle around, don't bring me into the turbulence of philosophy, im too young to die, so god help me, amen.

2006-01-25 02:14:01 補充：
no mind, i won, i won a piece of knowledge that nobody can steal or rob from me.

2006-01-25 17:35:49 補充：
As you guy can see my score almost hit 1000 answers with more than 600 best answers, i`m 大師一級 very soon, but i believe i have no way to get the upper level 知識長 in my life (70%? shoot me),

2006-01-25 17:36:07 補充：
so i no longer have any objective in this game, it`s like there`s no sunrise tomorrow, i have to say good-bye to everybody very soon, it`s been all my pleasure to work with you guys in these days, believe me, i love you all.

2006-01-26 18:06:50 補充：
別嚇我，小弟不才，深受大哥大姊們扶持，愚弟感激涕泠，自忖材疏學淺有時班門弄斧還敬請見諒，自無大大們所言一般，如屬反話諷刺本人，本人保留法律追訴之權利。

2006-01-27 19:16:59 補充：
抗議！抗議！你們檔案都不打開，小弟要向各位拜年都不得其門而入，就只好在這裡向各位拜年，祝您們新年快樂萬事如意。

如果你們繼續如此妨害拜年的自由，本人保留法律追訴的權利。

Answer 8

看來是由 expressotech 那篇繼續討論吧 我也來參一腳吧!

2006-01-21 05:29:20 補充：
呀! 真的嗎? 有三種? @_@

2006-01-21 05:48:07 補充：
我會將這句以三個小句子來分析整篇文章 (只論文法, 不論翻譯)1. This equipment shall cause no safety hazard which could reasonably be foreseen.2. This equipment shall cause no safety hazard which is not connected with its intended application.3. No safety hazard under normal and single fault conditions.

2006-01-21 05:55:54 補充：
另一個話題是論翻譯 這裡是討論會不會有其他的翻譯...我嘛, 我目前只想到一個. 今天晚上有得動腦了.

(To Banff) 應該不可以移動標點符號吧?　呵呵~~

2006-01-22 00:11:09 補充：
所以看來 Saphi 的答案是 Banff 想要的. 我還是堅持我的看法, 文法上只有一種翻法... 不更改了.

2006-01-23 09:01:55 補充：
OJ 跑掉是因為檢查關不小心的疏忽 使原本的謀殺案變成調查執法人員的案子.

法律上並不能文字不清析, 在法庭上玩文字遊戲並不會使自己站在有利的一方, 因為文件的詮釋如果模擬兩可, 那也就形同作廢了.

2006-01-28 01:03:22 補充：
Egghead, 有呀 我的是公開的

Answer 9

本設備將不為 任何可預知或與本產品無關之其他運做上的安全傷害 負責.
無論是正常狀態下或 single fault (不會翻)狀況下....

2006-01-21 05:32:02 補充：
到底可以有幾種完全合乎文法,,,我也不大了解你的意思 不過我大致說明一下我的看法好了~This equipment 主詞,shall cause 主要動詞,no safety hazard 受詞,which could reasonably be foreseen 修飾功能關係子句 which is not connected with its intended application 也是修飾功能關係子句 (都是拿來形容前面受詞, 為受詞補語)

2006-01-21 05:32:50 補充：
我打不進去了~
in normal condition and in single fault condition.為副詞修飾整段...在任何情況下~
PS.以上是我的解釋.....有沒有覺得有點redundant 也許這些你都早已經懂了~

2006-01-21 05:36:09 補充：
其他意見補充的讓我有點毫無頭緒 ><

Answer 10

幾種是啥意思?