Need translation help!

[nipponman]

Hi everybody,

Firstly, can someone tell me what role 加以, 出, and 來 play in this sentence:

如果把這一種語言本領仔細加以觀察與分析﹐我們一定可以歸納出一些規律來決定那類形容詞可以重疊﹐形容詞不能重疊。

My translation goes as follows: "If (we) carefully examine and study this linguistic competence/proficiency/skill we can definitely conclude from these rules and decide which kind of adjectives can be duplicated, and which cannot."

It doesn't seem as if 加以 means "in addition, moreover" here, so it could be something else. Are the 出 and 來 part of the 出來 construction to show completion of action?

Secondly, Can someone offer a better translation?

If you could help me, I would apprieciate it.

Later.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, about a week ago (before I became a member)

I witnessed a discussion where it someone negated 可以. I could be wrong but, I was under the impression that you could not negate 可以 but that 能 would stand in its place as 不能. Am I wrong?

[HashiriKata]

It doesn't seem as if 加以 means "in addition, moreover" here, so it could be something else.

No, it doesn't mean "in addition, moreover" here. You can regard it as if it's there to indicate the unusual word order Obj+V, so just ignore it when translating.

Are the 出 and 來 part of the 出來 construction to show completion of action?

Kind of, but more precisely, it shows that something has been resulted from the action (it's a "resultative complement").

Secondly, Can someone offer a better translation?

If you could help me, I would apprieciate it.

Not necessarily better, but I'll try to make it more precise, which is more useful from the point of view of learning:

"If (we) carefully study [=examine & analyse] this kind of linguistic competence/proficiency/skill, we can definitely come up with some rules concerning which kinds of adjectives can be duplicated, and which cannot."

I was under the impression that you could not negate 可以 but that 能 would stand in its place as 不能. Am I wrong?

I think you are, as both can be negated with 不.

Cheers,

[nipponman]

Ok, Thanks.

I did some researching and I think I was wrong too, I must've misread this textbook from the 50's, oh well.