本课目标

学完本课，你能够：

• 用I was told that …报告自己收到的版本而不隐藏来源边界；
• 用That’s not how it was explained to me标记版本差异而非直接指控；
• 把直接引语准确转成间接转述；
• 比较原始问题、回复与摘要中的范围变化；
• 共同写一条最小必要更正，不公开私人争执。

本课边界

版本不同不自动等于有人撒谎。Carla可能把Ben的谨慎回复理解成实际拒绝；Ben的原话也确实给这种理解留下空间。本课不搜集无关群聊、不转发私人讨论、不要求第三方裁决夫妻关系。求证只使用与邀请状态有关的三条消息，并把更正限制在“谁有权答复、当前是否已接受或拒绝”。

场景词汇

• version of events 事件版本
• reported speech 间接转述
• passive report 被动报告
• exact wording 原始措辞
• summary 摘要
• status correction 状态更正
• message chain 消息链
• minimum necessary detail 最小必要信息

---

Compare the wording before deciding who changed the story

Maya and Ben place Carla’s question, Ben’s reply and the group update side by side. They need to understand how an open question became a public-sounding decline and draft a correction that does not blame Carla or disclose their private disagreement.

Part A — Following the message chain

Maya: That’s not how it was explained to me. The group update says, “Maya won’t be joining because her schedule is too full.” That reads as a completed decision.

Ben: I understand why. Carla’s original note asked whether you would be open to a ten-minute talk and said there was no pressure. She also said she could contact you directly.

Maya: What exactly did you say in reply?

Ben: I wrote, “Her hospital training calendar is unusually full, so please don’t count on her. If you still need an answer, ask her directly next week.”

Maya: Then I was told that I had declined, but your message actually combined a warning not to plan around me with permission to contact me later.

Ben: Yes, although “please don’t count on her” may have been understood as the main answer. The direct-contact sentence came second and sounded optional.

Maya: According to Carla’s group summary, my schedule was the reason for a final decision. The original source says only that she wanted to know whether I was open to being asked.

Ben: The reply cites your full calendar, but it doesn’t report a decision you made. I haven’t found any sentence where you accepted or declined.

Maya: Can we trace “won’t be joining” back to an exact sentence?

Ben: No. It appears to come from Carla’s interpretation of my warning, not from a direct reply by you.

Part B — Writing a correction without making a new accusation

Maya: I may have described Carla as changing your words, but that suggests intent we haven’t established. A more accurate version is that her summary made the status more final.

Ben: I agree. And I may have phrased my reply as if I had authority to set the expectation. That explains why the second sentence was easy to overlook.

Maya: If we write, “Carla misunderstood,” we will repeat the same problem by claiming to know her mental process.

Ben: Then let’s write only what the record supports: I replied out of concern, but I wasn’t authorized to answer for you.

Maya: We also need the current status. I haven’t accepted or declined, and I don’t want the group to wait while we discuss it.

Ben: The role may already be filled. Could the correction say there is no need to reopen it, but future invitations should come directly to you?

Maya: Yes. If the role is still open, Carla can send the details directly by Tuesday. I will answer her myself after checking my schedule.

Ben: I’ll send the correction to Carla privately first, not to the whole group. She can update the group only if the status still matters.

Maya: Read it back: “Ben replied before checking with Maya. Maya has not accepted or declined. Please contact her directly if an answer is still needed; otherwise no change is required.”

Ben: That keeps behavior, authority and status clear. It corrects the version without asking Carla to defend her intention or sharing our private conversation.

Message chain

Source	Exact wording／faithful summary	What changed at the next step
Carla → Ben	“Would Maya be open to a ten-minute talk? No pressure; I can contact her directly.”	open inquiry
Ben → Carla	“Please don’t count on her … ask her directly next week.”	warning plus open route; no Maya decision
Carla → group	“Maya won’t be joining because her schedule is too full.”	open status becomes final-sounding decline

Check the story

1. What did Carla’s original note ask?
2. Which two ideas did Ben combine in his reply?
3. Which words cannot be traced to a direct statement by Maya?
4. Why do Maya and Ben avoid writing Carla misunderstood?
5. What current status will the correction state?
6. Why will Ben contact Carla privately first?

---

被动报告可以保留接收者视角

I was told that Maya had declined.

这句话说明说话者收到什么版本，却可能隐藏是谁说的。若来源重要，应补：

I was told in the group update that …

不是这样解释的不等于你在撒谎

That’s not how it was explained to me.

它先标记输入差异，再邀请比较。后续应问What exactly was said?，而不是直接判断动机。

转述必须保留状态强度

would be open to不能转成agreed to；don’t count on her也不能自动转成she declined。第三册的信息调解要保留开放、暂定、未授权和已确认之间的差别。

---

本课负荷说明

本课主动掌握6个新词块。L73—L74的解释与反思语言继续复现；CH405—CH410完成远迁移。

1. I was told that …

报告自己收到的版本；中性。来源重要时应补出处。

I was told in the group update that Maya had declined.

2. That’s not how it was explained to me.

指出版本不同但暂不指控；中性、求证性。

That’s not how it was explained to me; can we compare the messages?

3. What exactly did you say?

请求原始措辞；直接但合作。

What exactly did you say when Carla asked about my availability?

4. Can we compare the messages?

把争论转向共同记录；合作、中性。

Can we compare the question, reply and group update?

5. The message says …; it was understood as …

区分文字和接收效果，不宣称唯一意图。

The message says “don’t count on her”; it was understood as a decline.

6. We have two different versions of …

命名分歧对象；适合调解开场。

We have two different versions of whether the invitation was still open.

Don’t Say It That Way

容易说出的句子	问题	更准确的表达
She lied about what you said.	没有动机证据	Her summary made the status more final than the original reply.
I heard you rejected it.	来源模糊、状态过强	I was told in the group update that Maya would not join.
He said she refused.	未保留原文范围	He said not to count on her and added that she could be contacted later.
Let’s send the whole thread to everyone.	公开过量私人信息	Let’s send the minimum status correction to the relevant person.

---

1. I was told that …

I was told that the invitation had been declined.

被动把接收者放在前面。若谁说的影响可信度，补by Carla / in the update。

2. 陈述转述的时态回移

直接：Carla said, “Maya won’t be joining.”
转述：Carla said that Maya wouldn’t be joining.

若信息仍然有效或原句时间关系已清楚，有时不必机械回移；本课优先保持来源时间线清楚。

3. 问句转述

直接：Carla asked, “Would Maya be open to a talk?”
转述：Carla asked whether Maya would be open to a talk.

间接问句使用陈述语序，不保留疑问倒装。

4. 请求转述

直接：Ben wrote, “Please don’t count on her.”
转述：Ben asked Carla not to count on Maya.

5. 状态词不能随转述被加强

asked whether不等于offered and she accepted；not authorized to answer不等于someone deliberately lied。

快速练习

转述或选择：

1. Carla asked, “Would Maya be open to a talk?”
2. Ben wrote, “Please don’t count on her.”
3. Carla said, “Maya won’t be joining.”
4. I was told ______ the update that Maya had declined. (in / by)
5. Carla asked whether Maya ______ open to a talk. (would be / would she be)
6. 改写：Carla lied and said Maya refused.

---

not重读，但结尾保持可继续语调：

That’s NOT how it was explained to me. / Can we compare the messages?

原文与理解之间停顿：

The message says DON’T COUNT ON HER; / it was understood as SHE DECLINED.

精确追问重读exactly和动作：

What EXACTLY did you SAY?

影子跟读

I was told that the invitation had been declined.
That’s not how it was explained to me.
What exactly did you say?
The message was understood as a final answer.

---

A. 理解检查

判断正误：

1. Carla’s original note says Maya had already accepted.
2. Ben’s reply contains both a warning and a direct-contact route.
3. Maya’s own decline appears in the message chain.
4. Maya and Ben conclude Carla deliberately changed the story.
5. The correction states that Maya has not accepted or declined.
6. They plan to publish their private disagreement to the group.

B. Question / Reply / Summary

把信息归入三层，并标出哪一层首次出现won’t be joining。

C. Direct → Reported

转述：

1. “I can contact Maya directly.”
2. “Please don’t count on her.”
3. “Maya won’t be joining.”
4. “Has Maya declined?”
5. “Ask her directly next week.”

D. 来源框架远迁移

使用CH405—CH410描述消息链：归给来源、谨慎定位无法直接追溯的措辞、指出最早消息、说明引用／摘要变化、报告未找到的Maya答复，并提出继续追溯问题。

E. L73—L74检索

用至少四个词块说明：哪句话可能被误解、谁可能表达不当、哪个过去选择影响现在、当时知道与不知道什么。

F. 最小必要更正

从以下信息中选择只需发送的三项：夫妻争论内容、Ben未获授权、Maya当前未接受／拒绝、Maya最近很累、未来直接联系、谁更生气、角色是否已填补。

G. 版本调解角色扮演

A持有原始问题，B持有回复，C持有摘要。不得直接展示卡片，先口头转述，再共同核对：

• exact wording;
• source;
• status strength;
• omitted sentence;
• minimum correction.

H. 4分钟信息链说明

用三个来源讲清一个低风险版本差异。必须包含直接引语一次、被动报告一次、间接问句一次和一条未确定结论。

I. 实用写作：状态更正

写160—210词私人更正：说明谁无权代答、当前状态、是否仍需行动、未来联系路径。不要加入对方动机或无关私人细节。

J. 中译英情境表达

1. 别人不是这样向我解释的。
2. 群消息告诉我，Maya已经拒绝了。
3. 你当时究竟说了什么？
4. 我们能比较一下这几条消息吗？
5. 消息写的是“不要把她算进去”，但别人把它理解成了拒绝。
6. 关于邀请是否仍然开放，我们现在有两个不同版本。

---

做一条三层消息链

选择普通场景：时间、地点、任务状态或邀请。每层只记录原句或忠实转述，再圈出第一次发生强度变化的词。

删除不必要的私人信息

写完更正后逐句问：这句话是否改变状态、责任人、截止点或下一步？若都不改变，考虑删除。

三天后的复测

听三条陌生转述，2分钟内说出source → exact status → change → unknown。若把might / open / possible改成已确认状态，重新练习。

---

• 我能用被动报告并在必要时补来源。
• 我能把陈述、问句和请求准确转述。
• 我不会把版本差异直接称为撒谎。
• 我能追踪状态从开放到确定的变化。
• 我能写最小必要更正而不公开私人争执。
• 我完成了4分钟信息链说明、160—210词更正、来源框架远迁移和L73—L74检索。