刚才另一个吧，看到有人说英国长大，愿意帮助英语学习者。
高兴的讲了自己的问题。
中午回来，发现对方帖子都删了。
感觉自己做了什么不好的事。
问题如下，困惑一周了。
I ran across the following excerpt about a week ago. Still not sure how I should construe part of it. I guess, that's because I don't know some bits of British history or culture. You've grown up there. Perhaps you can tell me the meaning of that part.
It doesn't matter whether you can interpret the intended meaning or not. It's probably too technical for a lay person like you and me anyway. By providing your opinion, you will be able to verify what you claimed. Pelple here would welcome with open arms anyone who's good at English and is willing to help others. I've been annoyed by this for quite a while and would appreciate any help.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The great end of matrimony is not the comfort and convenience of the immediate parties, though these are necessarily embarked in it; but the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father; and the reciprocal taking for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and cherish till death, are important, but only modal conditions of the contract, and no more than ancillary to the principal purpose of it.
2. The civil rights created by them may be forfeited by the misconduct of either party; but though the forfeiture can be incurred, so far as the parties themselves are concerned, only by a responsible agent, it follows not that those rights must not give way without it to public policy, and the paramount purposes of the marriage — the procreation and protection of legitimate children, the institution of families, and the creation of natural relations among mankind; from which proceed all the civilization, virtue, and happiness to be found in the world.
Matchin v. Matchin, 6 Pa. 332(1847)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To make things easier. I've numbered the two sentences.
The meaning of sentence 1 is fairly clear. It approximately means the purpose of marrige is not for husbands and wives to enjoy it, but for their children to be entitled to the father's care, and both parents looking after the childred are merely an auxiliary part.
For the most part, sentence 2 is not too difficult. The part after the dash explains in detail what ''the paramount purposes of the marrige'' are. The part before the dash starts by saying the civil rights created by two parties gettingt married may be taken away. Then, well, I'm stuck here.
The original writer used a semicolon. I think that means the sentences on both sides are closely connected. According to them, although those rights can be taken away, when it comes to the husband and wife, ''only by a responsible agent, it follows not that those rights must not give way without it to public policy, and the paramount purposes of the marriage''.
What's ''a responsible agent''? What's an agent got to do with a marriage?
The original writer used double negation in the following part. If I turn it into a normal sentence, it will read Therefore those rights must give way to public policy and the paramount purposes of the marrige. In other words, public policy and the paramount purposes of the marrige are more important than the rights brought about by two parties getting married. Standing alone, this may seem to make sense. But, in the original sentence, it seems quite illogical. Although those rights can be taken away, they are less important than public policy and the purposes of the marriage. Where's the logical connection? For me, whether some rights are more, or less, important than public policy and the purposes of the marrige is irrelevant to whether they can be taken away according to law.
高兴的讲了自己的问题。
中午回来，发现对方帖子都删了。
感觉自己做了什么不好的事。
问题如下，困惑一周了。
I ran across the following excerpt about a week ago. Still not sure how I should construe part of it. I guess, that's because I don't know some bits of British history or culture. You've grown up there. Perhaps you can tell me the meaning of that part.
It doesn't matter whether you can interpret the intended meaning or not. It's probably too technical for a lay person like you and me anyway. By providing your opinion, you will be able to verify what you claimed. Pelple here would welcome with open arms anyone who's good at English and is willing to help others. I've been annoyed by this for quite a while and would appreciate any help.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The great end of matrimony is not the comfort and convenience of the immediate parties, though these are necessarily embarked in it; but the procreation of a progeny having a legal title to maintenance by the father; and the reciprocal taking for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and cherish till death, are important, but only modal conditions of the contract, and no more than ancillary to the principal purpose of it.
2. The civil rights created by them may be forfeited by the misconduct of either party; but though the forfeiture can be incurred, so far as the parties themselves are concerned, only by a responsible agent, it follows not that those rights must not give way without it to public policy, and the paramount purposes of the marriage — the procreation and protection of legitimate children, the institution of families, and the creation of natural relations among mankind; from which proceed all the civilization, virtue, and happiness to be found in the world.
Matchin v. Matchin, 6 Pa. 332(1847)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To make things easier. I've numbered the two sentences.
The meaning of sentence 1 is fairly clear. It approximately means the purpose of marrige is not for husbands and wives to enjoy it, but for their children to be entitled to the father's care, and both parents looking after the childred are merely an auxiliary part.
For the most part, sentence 2 is not too difficult. The part after the dash explains in detail what ''the paramount purposes of the marrige'' are. The part before the dash starts by saying the civil rights created by two parties gettingt married may be taken away. Then, well, I'm stuck here.
The original writer used a semicolon. I think that means the sentences on both sides are closely connected. According to them, although those rights can be taken away, when it comes to the husband and wife, ''only by a responsible agent, it follows not that those rights must not give way without it to public policy, and the paramount purposes of the marriage''.
What's ''a responsible agent''? What's an agent got to do with a marriage?
The original writer used double negation in the following part. If I turn it into a normal sentence, it will read Therefore those rights must give way to public policy and the paramount purposes of the marrige. In other words, public policy and the paramount purposes of the marrige are more important than the rights brought about by two parties getting married. Standing alone, this may seem to make sense. But, in the original sentence, it seems quite illogical. Although those rights can be taken away, they are less important than public policy and the purposes of the marriage. Where's the logical connection? For me, whether some rights are more, or less, important than public policy and the purposes of the marrige is irrelevant to whether they can be taken away according to law.
爱好会计，厉害
