[
  {
    "notice": "只有 title 和 text 字段是必填，其他字段可删除不填。填写时，请从第三条数据开始填写，第二条数据是示例，填写完成之后，不要删除前面两条",
    "notice1": "只有 title 和 text 字段是必填，其他字段可删除不填。填写时，请从第三条数据开始填写，第二条数据是示例，填写完成之后，不要删除前面两条",
    "notice2": "只有 title 和 text 字段是必填，其他字段可删除不填。填写时，请从第三条数据开始填写，第二条数据是示例，填写完成之后，不要删除前面两条",
    "title": "这里填标题，必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填",
    "titleTranslate": "这里填标题翻译",
    "text": "这里填原文，一句一个换行符，一段两个换行符，必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填必填",
    "textTranslate": "这里填原文翻译，一句一个换行符，一段两个换行符",
    "audioSrc": "这里填音频的url/在线地址"
  },
  {
    "title": "How are you today?",
    "titleTranslate": "今天好吗？",
    "text": "STEVEN:Hello, HELEN.\n\nHELEN:Hi, Steven.\n\nSTEVEN:How are you today?\n\nHELEN:I'm very well, thank you. And you?\n\nSTEVEN:I'm fine, thanks.\n\nSTEVEN:How is Tony?\n\nHELEN:He's fine, thanks. How's Emma?\n\nSTEVEN:She's very well, too, Helen.\n\nSTEVEN:Goodbye, Helen.Nice to see you.\n\nHELEN:Nice to see you, too, Steven. Goodbye.",
    "textTranslate": "史蒂文：你好，海伦 \n\n海 伦：你好，史蒂文 \n\n史蒂文：你今天好吗？ \n\n海 伦：很好，谢谢你。你好吗？ \n\n史蒂文：很好，谢谢。 \n\n史蒂文：托尼好吗？ \n\n海 伦：他很好，谢谢。埃玛好吗？ \n\n史蒂文：她也很好，海伦。 \n\n史蒂文：再见，海伦。见到你真高兴。 \n\n海 伦：我见到你也很高兴，史蒂文。再见。",
    "audioSrc": "/sound/article/nce1/009&010－How Are You Today.mp3"
  },
  {
    "title": "19A Making the Important Point Clear",
    "titleTranslate": "第19课A｜强调、纠正与精确表达",
    "text": "Precise communication sometimes requires more than stating a fact; I may need to correct an assumption or show which condition made a result possible.\nFor example, a successful build does not by itself establish that an updated page is visible in the production environment used by ordinary visitors.\nI can express this limitation with an ordinary sentence and then choose a stronger structure when the distinction deserves particular attention.\nOnly after we checked the production page did we confirm that the update was actually available to the intended audience.\nThe opening phrase limits the condition for confirmation, and the following auxiliary moves before the subject to create partial inversion.\nThis structure sounds more formal than a normal progress report, so it is useful when the emphasis has a clear communicative purpose.\nI can also highlight the cause with a cleft sentence, saying that it was the configuration value that caused the failed request.\nThe emphasis identifies the relevant cause without requiring me to claim that every other part of the system has been examined or proved correct.\nWhen I correct an earlier interpretation, I state the intended meaning clearly and explain which part of the previous statement was too broad.\nThe purpose of emphasis is to make a meaningful distinction easier to understand, not to make an ordinary message sound unnecessarily complicated or impressive.",
    "textTranslate": "精确沟通有时不只陈述事实，还需纠正假设或说明使结果成立的条件。\n例如构建成功本身不能证明普通访客访问的生产页已更新。\n可以用普通句表达限制，特别需要强调时再选更强结构。\n只有检查生产页之后，我们才确认更新确实对目标用户可用。\n开头短语限定确认条件，后面的助动词移到主语前形成部分倒装。\n结构比普通进度报告正式，强调有明确沟通目的时才有用。\n也可以用分裂强调句突出原因：导致请求失败的是配置值。\n强调指出相关原因，不要求声称系统其他部分都已检查证明正确。\n纠正先前理解时，清楚说明本意及先前说法哪部分过宽。\n强调是让重要区别更易理解，不是让普通消息显复杂或炫技。"
  },
  {
    "title": "19B Using Emphasis Without Making Every Sentence Complicated",
    "titleTranslate": "第19课B｜强调、纠正与精确表达",
    "text": "Different sentence structures can express the same basic event while directing the reader's attention toward a different part of the explanation.\nThe ordinary sentence says that I understood the issue only after seeing the actual response returned by the server.\nThe emphasized version begins with only after that check and continues with did I understand, placing the auxiliary before the subject.\nWith a negative opening such as never, rarely, or not until, formal English can use the same kind of auxiliary movement in the main clause.\nNever have I treated a successful push as proof that every page is correct; that sentence emphasizes the speaker's consistent position.\nHowever, when only directly modifies the subject, the sentence normally keeps its ordinary order, as in only this file needs changing.\nI also pay attention to partial negation, because not every feature is necessary does not mean that no feature is necessary at all.\nIn conversation, shorter answers can omit repeated words when the context is clear, but the intended meaning still needs to remain recoverable.\nIf someone asks whether I can review the result, answering yes, I can is complete enough because the action is already understood.\nLearning these contrasts helps me choose between a neutral explanation, a stronger correction, and a concise reply that suits the situation.",
    "textTranslate": "不同句式可以表达相同事件，同时把注意力引向解释的不同部分。\n普通句说，只有看到服务器实际响应后，我才理解问题。\n强调版以only after…开头，再接did I understand，将助动词放主语前。\nnever、rarely、not until等否定成分前置时，正式英文主句可同样移动助动词。\nNever have I…强调说话者从未把推送成功当成每页正确证明的一贯立场。\n但only直接修饰主语时通常不倒装，例如只有此文件需要改。\n我也注意部分否定，因为并非每项都必要不等于任何一项都不必要。\n交谈中语境清楚可省略重复词，但仍需能恢复本意。\n有人问能否检查结果，答yes, I can即可，因为动作已知。\n学这些区别帮助我按场景选择中性解释、强纠正或简短回答。"
  },
  {
    "title": "19C Working Conversation",
    "titleTranslate": "第19课C｜强调、纠正与精确表达",
    "text": "Colleague: The changes were pushed successfully, so does that mean the new page is definitely visible and every related feature has been checked?\nMe: Not necessarily; a successful push confirms that stage, but we still need to distinguish it from deployment and actual behavior on the site.\nColleague: How could you emphasize that difference if a report had already made the result sound broader than the available evidence supports?\nMe: I could say, only after checking the production page did we confirm the update was live, while naming the pages actually reviewed.\nColleague: Would you use that inverted structure in every ordinary update, or is a simpler sentence usually better for a short working conversation?\nMe: A simpler sentence is usually better; inversion is useful when the condition needs emphasis, and the audience can follow the structure comfortably.\nColleague: If only one file needs changing, should we also move an auxiliary before the subject because the sentence begins with the word only?\nMe: No; only modifies the subject there, so the normal order remains, and we should say that only this file needs changing.",
    "textTranslate": "同事：推送成功了，是否新页肯定可见且相关功能都检查了？\n我：未必，推送成功只确认那个阶段，仍需区分部署与站点实际行为。\n同事：若报告已夸大结果，怎样强调这个区别？\n我：可以说只有检查生产页后才确认上线，并列真正检查页面。\n同事：每次普通更新都倒装吗，还是简短工作对话用简单句更好？\n我：通常简单句更好，需要强调条件且读者能跟上时才用倒装。\n同事：只有一个文件需改时，only开头也需助动词移到主语前吗？\n我：不用，only修饰主语，保留正常语序，说only this file needs changing。"
  },
  {
    "title": "19D Sentence Review",
    "titleTranslate": "第19课D｜强调、纠正与精确表达",
    "text": "Precise communication sometimes requires more than stating a fact; I may need to correct an assumption or show which condition made a result possible.\nI can express this limitation with an ordinary sentence and then choose a stronger structure when the distinction deserves particular attention.\nThe opening phrase limits the condition for confirmation, and the following auxiliary moves before the subject to create partial inversion.\nThe emphasis identifies the relevant cause without requiring me to claim that every other part of the system has been examined or proved correct.\nDifferent sentence structures can express the same basic event while directing the reader's attention toward a different part of the explanation.\nThe emphasized version begins with only after that check and continues with did I understand, placing the auxiliary before the subject.\nHowever, when only directly modifies the subject, the sentence normally keeps its ordinary order, as in only this file needs changing.\nIf someone asks whether I can review the result, answering yes, I can is complete enough because the action is already understood.\nThe changes were pushed successfully, so does that mean the new page is definitely visible and every related feature has been checked?\nHow could you emphasize that difference if a report had already made the result sound broader than the available evidence supports?\nWould you use that inverted structure in every ordinary update, or is a simpler sentence usually better for a short working conversation?\nIf only one file needs changing, should we also move an auxiliary before the subject because the sentence begins with the word only?",
    "textTranslate": "精确沟通有时不只陈述事实，还需纠正假设或说明使结果成立的条件。\n可以用普通句表达限制，特别需要强调时再选更强结构。\n开头短语限定确认条件，后面的助动词移到主语前形成部分倒装。\n强调指出相关原因，不要求声称系统其他部分都已检查证明正确。\n不同句式可以表达相同事件，同时把注意力引向解释的不同部分。\n强调版以only after…开头，再接did I understand，将助动词放主语前。\n但only直接修饰主语时通常不倒装，例如只有此文件需要改。\n有人问能否检查结果，答yes, I can即可，因为动作已知。\n同事：推送成功了，是否新页肯定可见且相关功能都检查了？\n同事：若报告已夸大结果，怎样强调这个区别？\n同事：每次普通更新都倒装吗，还是简短工作对话用简单句更好？\n同事：只有一个文件需改时，only开头也需助动词移到主语前吗？"
  },
  {
    "title": "19E Vocabulary in Context",
    "titleTranslate": "第19课E｜强调、纠正与精确表达",
    "text": "I am honestly not sure which change caused the result, and I would rather ask than give an unsupported explanation.\nThe word \"may\" softens a claim by expressing possibility instead of certainty, but it should not hide relevant evidence.\nA clear explanation separates sense from spelling, because a similar-looking phrase may have a different meaning or grammatical role.\nThe statement was wrongfully presented as a confirmed result, so the correction should state the actual evidence directly.\nThe general tone is positive, yet the speaker has a mixed feeling about the amount of unfinished work.\nA slash separates alternatives in a note, while a full sentence usually explains the relationship more naturally.\nNot only did the team restore access, but it also explained why the failure had occurred in the first place.\nThe wording is subtle: \"not all\" leaves some possibilities open, whereas \"none\" excludes every member of the group.",
    "textTranslate": "坦白说不确定哪个修改导致结果，宁愿问也不提供无据解释。\nmay以可能性缓和断言，但不应隐藏相关证据。\n清晰说明区分含义与拼写，形似短语可能意义或语法作用不同。\n该说法被不当地当作已证实结果，纠正应直接说明证据。\n总体语气积极，但说话者对大量未完工作感觉复杂。\n斜杠在笔记分隔选项，完整句则通常更自然解释关系。\n团队不仅恢复访问，还解释故障最初为何发生。\n措辞很细：not all保留一些可能，none排除全组。"
  }
]