# 在一定程度接受了公約的原則與目標上



## viajero_canjeado

Greetings!

I was wondering why in this sentence the 上 is so far removed from 程度: "[這些國家,] 即通過這種協定在一定程度接受了《公約》與原則與目標上。"

Personally I would have thought the 上 sounds more natural placed right after the 程度. Any ideas why the 上 is at the end of the sentence? Does it perhaps serve another function than working alongside the 程度?

Thanks for your comments!


----------



## Lamb67

You are right. 
The text sounds weird.A poor translation perhaps.


----------



## viajero_canjeado

Whoops! I should have said "《公約》的原則與目標上"。


----------



## Lamb67

程度...上 is weird ;程度上 is normal.


----------



## viajero_canjeado

Yeah, I don't believe it's due to being a poor translation; the author is a more than capable writer, and a native speaker, and it's not even a translation. However, I've already found a couple errors of oversight in the book, so perhaps it's just a copy and paste mistake (coupled with less than rigorous editing). Thanks for your feedback, Lamb.


----------



## avlee

The book could be pirate which is a commonplace to me in the past years.


----------



## viajero_canjeado

I feel sure that's not the case. Feel free to check it out for yourself: 水下文化遺產的國際法保護：2001年聯合國教科文組織『保護水下文化遺產公約』解析，傅崑成和宋玉祥著，北京，法律出版社，第一版，2006，頁63。


----------



## avlee

Sorry, I might be wrong in this case. 
The reason why we often take low quality books as pirates is because we used to have well-edited books in the past good old days when the authority supervised all the printing activities resulting ritual but errorless textbooks. 
That begets an illusion to us all: any readings are supposed to be correct at the first place because people/the government treat it seriously. 
Now since the control over the publication/printing industry is loose. Pirates keep showing up usually with inferior quality in terms of editing/typo, which in turn makes people believe that only pirates have these mistakes. Actually, official publishers may make the same mistake as well.


----------



## bamboobanga

> [這些國家,] 即通過這種協定在一定程度接受了《公約》的原則與目標上。



hmm.. sounds weird.


----------



## xiaolijie

viajero_canjeado said:


> I feel sure that's not the case. Feel free to check it out for yourself: 水下文化遺產的國際法保護：2001年聯合國教科文組織『保護水下文化遺產公約』解析，傅崑成和宋玉祥著，北京，法律出版社，第一版，2006，頁63。


I don't have access to this and don't seem to be able to get it online. I wonder if you could type out the next sentence after your quote for us. I just want to see if this 上 has anything to do with what follows it.


----------



## viajero_canjeado

Sure, I'll add in a bit more context:

但這種協定卻反應了這些國家的矛盾心理，即通過這種協定在一定程度接受了公約的原則與目標上，卻仍然對該公約持漠視或反對態度。


----------



## xiaolijie

Thanks, viajero_canjeado!
Here is what I think (but can't be sure if it is correct ): the 上 you're concerning about (does not belong to 在一定程度(上) but) belongs to the phrase 公約的原則與目標上 (just like 原則上, etc.), and here is my attempt to clarify it through a rough translation:

但這種協定卻反應了這些國家的矛盾心理，即通過這種協定在一定程度接受了公約的原則與目標上，卻仍然對該公約持漠視或反對態度。 
_However, this kind of agreements reflects these countries' contradictory psychology, i.e, through this kind of agreements, it can be said, they accept the pact's principles and objectives but still not fully embrace the pact itself._


----------



## Lamb67

一定程度上，They are pretty fixed tightly. Thus it's normal.


----------



## xiaolijie

Lamb67 said:


> 一定程度上，They are pretty fixed tightly. Thus it's normal.


But the 上 can also be omitted, as in the quote above. I don't think it's unusual at all to see a phrase like this: *(X) 在一定程度*接受了*(Y)*


----------



## Ghabi

xiaolijie said:


> 但這種協定卻反應映了這些國家的矛盾心理，即通過這種協定在一定程度接受了公約的原則與目標上，卻仍然對該公約持漠視或反對態度。


The sentence won't make sense even if we omit "在一定程度". The problem is that the word "上" after "目標" is simply out-of-place. I guess you're thinking something like "即通過這種協定在原則與目標上(in terms of its principles and goals)接受了公約", which has more or less the same meaning, but has a different structure.


----------



## viajero_canjeado

Thanks for pointing out the mistake with 映; needless to say, that was my own error.


----------

