ChaseDream
标题: 求助一道网上搜不到曼哈顿语法题 [打印本页]
作者: 草鱼1991 时间: 2018-12-3 21:39
标题: 求助一道网上搜不到曼哈顿语法题
这章节是时态，语气和语态，后面的problem
[size=14.699999809265137px]第一个问题：
developed 改为 was developed 的被动语态很明显，但为什么不能是 is developed。而解析说，一定要为过去时的被动语态。
当然解释为过去发明的F_Tprocess没有问题，可我觉得现在时也没毛病呢？感谢哪位解答！
原题题目：In the Fischer-Tropsch process, which developed in Germany by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, coal is converted into a liquid fuel similar to petroleum.
----------
答案：
Correction: In the Fischer-Tropsch process, which was developed in Germany by Franz Fischer and HansTropsch, coal is converted into a liquid fuel similar to petroleum.
--------
解析：Developed (active voice) should be was developed (passive voice). The passive voice is required because the people who developed the process appear in the non-underlined phrase by Franz Fischer and Hans
Tropsch.
Is converted (passive voice) is correct. The passive voice is required because unnamed agent(s), rather than the coal itself, cause the conversion ofthe coal into a liquid fuel. Supposing that the whole sen tence were underlined and that you were therefore free to rewrite it completely, should you change it into the active voice? No, because the passive voice is ideally suited to the purposes ofthis sentence. The author wants to tell us about the Fischer-Tropsch process, not to list the various parties who happen to use that process. It is therefore fitting for the words Fischer-Tropsch process to be in the subject position. To put Fischer-Tropsch in the subject position, the verb to develop must be in the passive voice.
——————————————————
第二个问题：
我的疑问是，在修饰原则里讲过touch原则，所以by picasso 应该是就近修饰painting就可以了。
不太明白是因为by picasso在被动语态中是动词的发出者，所以才造成歧义的吗？
那这样的话，当同一个修饰词既可以修饰名词，又可以修饰动词的时候，就判断为歧义，而不考虑touch原则了吗？
14.原题：The dealer was asked to sell a painting by Picasso.
Corrections: Picasso asked the dealer to sell a painting.
OR The dealer was asked to sell a Picasso painting.
------
解析：
The words by Picasso are ambiguous. Because was asked is in the passive voice, by Picasso could be meant to tell us who asked the dealer to sell the painting—in which case the sentence should read Picasso asked the dealer to sell thepainting. Alternatively, by Picasso could simply be meant to identify the painting as a work by Picasso, in which case the sentence should read The dealer was asked to sell a Picasso painting.
作者: fuckoffand 时间: 2018-12-3 22:06
1，那个process是之前被developed而且developed这个动作没有延续至今（就算延续至今也不能用现在时），而且它不是一个general truth 比如说地球是圆的，所以不能用现在时啊；
2. “那这样的话，当同一个修饰词既可以修饰名词，又可以修饰动词的时候，就判断为歧义，而不考虑touch原则了吗？”不是很明白这个问题。。
by picasso 这个歧义楼主应该懂吧？1/asked by picasso; 2/painting by picasso，所以有歧义
作者: 草鱼1991 时间: 2018-12-4 22:08
感谢，第一个明白了，一般现在时表示事实或者频繁发生的事情，develop都不属于这两种。
作者: 草鱼1991 时间: 2018-12-4 22:10
感谢，第一个明白了，一般现在时表示事实或者频繁发生的事情，develop都不属于这两种。
第二个问题是，歧义我看出来了，问题是在这个时候是不是应该先遵守touch原则，不考虑v+by sb／sth的用法，而结果显然是不优先touch原则。对于这点，觉得不知道该如何解释。就是记下来吗？
作者: fuckoffand 时间: 2018-12-5 00:48
mmmm，怎么说呢，你的touch原则的意思是不是修饰词必须要紧跟着被修饰的名词？比如the girl walking down the street is my sister - 这个walking down就是修饰girl，是这个意思吗？
如果是的话，我觉得这个painting by picasso 有一个问题，就是painting是作为名词，by picasso应该是adv modifier? 如果是的话是不能修饰名词的。
不过不用记那么多，只要语意上有混淆那就一定错。
作者: 草鱼1991 时间: 2018-12-5 22:02
先谢谢你啊，愿意帮助讨论这么多，感恩～
作者: 草鱼1991 时间: 2018-12-5 22:02
先谢谢你啊，愿意帮助讨论这么多，感恩～
另外，painting作为名词，by picasso是介词短语是可以修饰名词的。
其实我有点钻牛角尖了
作者: 梦里的富翁 时间: 2018-12-6 10:54
SC里面的错误应该分为几级，歧义算是一级错误了，其实有很多句子都是不按常理出牌的，这个时候就不要太纠结了
而且这个题目里面正确选项pianting 也是紧挨着它的作者啊 而且更加简洁
touch原则确实没错，但是是用在两个句子对比之中，如果一个句子touch了 而另外一个句子没有touch， 这个时候就可以通过它排除
而出现了歧义是肯定错误的 毫无疑问
作者: 草鱼1991 时间: 2018-12-9 16:41
同意，感谢～
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |