Now,the problem with this is that Papias and these other people didn't really know what they were talking about.

问题是帕皮亚和其他人,根本不知道自己在说什么。

耶鲁公开课 - 新约课程节选

like, "What's your favorite television show?", or information you wouldn't think to ask poets, necessarily.

例如，“你最喜欢看的电视节目是什么？”，还有一些你根本不会拿来采访诗人的问题。

耶鲁文艺刊主编 - SpeakingMax英语口语达人

Now theory resembles philosophy perhaps in this: that it asks fundamental questions and also at times builds systems.

理论和哲学的相似之处在于：,它探讨根本性的问题，而且有时也建立系统。

耶鲁公开课 - 文学理论导论课程节选

But if you can accept the purity of the statement I just made, it is at the root of the thing you have a solution.

但如果你能够遵从原教旨主义的方式,那么这就是你解决此问题的根本

耶鲁公开课 - 古希腊历史简介课程节选

Those for me are the fundamental questions. You see what I mean?

对于我来说，这些事最根本的问题？

普林斯顿公开课 - 人性课程节选

And that really gets into the question fundamentally so what.

那就进入到这个,根本性的问题，那又怎样。

麻省理工公开课 - 媒体、教育、市场课程节选

The question isn't, is this explanation impossible?' The question is just, who's got the better explanation?' You guys can't offer any kind of explanation at all, yet.

问题不是,这种解释可不可能,问题是,谁的解释更合理,而你们这群人根本就没能做出任何解释

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

I just think that that's the whole moral issue is that there was no consulting of the cabin boy and that's what makes it the most horrible is that he had no idea what was even going on.

我只是觉得，最大的道德问题,就是根本没人征得过派克的意见,最可怕的是,他当时是完全被蒙在鼓里的。

耶鲁公开课 - 公正课程节选

And now maybe...now I've just heard that maybe one of those two recessions wasn't even a classic recession at all So the question is 1890 to 1945 on the one hand, 1983 to the present on the other, does that tell us that ? we've gotten better at government interventions?

那么现在也许。。。就你们刚才所说,其中一次所谓的衰退也许,根本不能算是典型的经济衰退了,那么问题在于，从1890年到1945年，以及1983年至今的经济状况，是否说明,政府对经济的干预是有利的？

斯坦福公开课 - 经济学课程节选

And I thought about this question for a minute and I realized that there is no Wow.

我想了一会这个问题,然后意识到根本没有什么惊奇可言。

哈佛公开课 - 幸福课课程节选

That's the question we're going to try and address. If we can do this, this is good, because first of all, it removes any questions about what machine I'm running on, it's talking about fundamentally, how hard is this problem, and the second thing is, it is going to do it specifically in terms of the input. Which is one of the things that I was worried about.

这是一个我们接下来要去,尝试和解决的问题，如果我们能做到的话会很不错，因为首先，它解决了结果可能和我,运行的计算机有关系的问题，因为这从根本了告诉了，我们这个问题的复杂度，第二件事情,就是这种方法可以依据输入的大小来计算,而这正是我最担心的地方。

麻省理工公开课 - 计算机科学及编程导论课程节选

may have turned out to be misguided.

这问题可能根本是被误导的。

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

So the question can't even get off the ground.

因此这个问题根本是无稽之谈

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选

But it's possible,I suggested, that we really shouldn't focus on the question, what does it take for me to survive?

但我认为，很可能，那根本不是我们应该重视的问题，比起讨论我要存活下去需要什么条件？

耶鲁公开课 - 死亡课程节选