ChaseDream

标题: 问一个曼哈顿CAT的~ [打印本页]

作者: qqsnakes 时间: 2015-11-3 21:24
标题: 问一个曼哈顿CAT的~

In 1860, the Philological Society launched its effort to create a dictionary more comprehensive than the world had ever seen; although the project took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary was born.

		took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary was
		would have taken more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary had been
		took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary was being
		would take more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary was
		took more than 60 years to complete, the Oxford English Dictionary was about to be

我选的是A，不过答案说是D 这是曼哈顿给的解释

The sentence discusses several actions using the simple past tense: the Society launched a project, the Dictionary was born, and the project took more than 60 years to complete. Logically, these actions cannot all have happened at the same moment, so it is inappropriate to use the simple past tense for every action. The birth and launch are the same thing, and so took place at the same time, but the completion took place 60 years later. Look for a choice that indicates this difference in time.

(A) This choice is incorrect as it uses the simple past tense for actions that must have taken place at different times in the past.

(B) The first verb has changed to would have taken. This conditional form changes the meaning, implying that the books’ completion was only hypothetical; it did not actually occur. Consider this example: the test normally would have taken 3 hours to complete, but she finished early.

(C) The present participle being is used with the progressive tense to indicate a continuing or ongoing action. Logically, however, the Dictionary's start must have been at a single point in time, rather than over the course of the book's development. The sentence also illogically implies that the launched and took 60 years actions occurred simultaneously.

(D) CORRECT. This choice uses an unusual (but completely acceptable) construction. Would take is an example of a future tense written from the point of view of the past. For example, consider this conversation: “I will go to the movies with you.” “What? I didn’t hear you.” “I said I would go to the movies with you.” In the last sentence, the word would is an example of a future tense from a past point of view: I said (in the past) that I would (in the future) go to the movies with you. This timeframe fits the actions given in the problem: the Dictionary was born (at a point in time in the past) and would take more than 60 years (from that point in time forward) to complete.

(E) This choice incorrectly adopts the construction was about to be born, which conflicts with the non-underlined portion of the sentence. The first half of the sentence indicates that the project was launched in 1860 in the past tense, making any reference to the book being about to be born at some future point in time incorrect.

[size=12.001199722290039px]我是觉得既然都是过去的事了（in 1860）用took也没问题吧

作者: qqsnakes 时间: 2015-11-5 09:48
HELP~~~~~~

作者: choooi 时间: 2015-11-6 20:40
在RON的视频看到过，因为前句用了launched，所以是站在过去的角度讲编词典这件事，既然站在过去讲未来，就要用would（虽然我也不太能接受这个解释，希望对LZ有启发= =

作者: qqsnakes 时间: 2015-11-9 09:36

choooi 发表于 2015-11-6 20:40
在RON的视频看到过，因为前句用了launched，所以是站在过去的角度讲编词典这件事，既然站在过去讲未来，就 ...

好像只能这样理解了

作者: 我也想知道 时间: 2019-11-10 17:29
结合Manhattan的解释，和Thursdays with Ron 的讲解，我是这样理解的：

1. 这句话的意思是“1860年，某组织开始编写一本比当时任何字典都要更全面的字典。虽然编字典的工作要花60年完成，但至少从1860年开始编了。” 而不是说，“... 这个组织花了60年时间编字典，并且在1860年开始编写了”

2. 所以，从语义来说，为了表达“站在过去的角度看未来”，用would take更合适

3. 如果两个动词都用过去式，表示“这个组织花了60年时间编字典”，并且“这本字典在1860年开始编写了”，两句话之间没有转折的关系，所以第一个动词took 不合适。

作者: Vickyjma 时间: 2021-10-26 09:43
太牵强了！OG里哟这么用法吗

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)