ChaseDream
标题: 一道OG语法题： 关于时态 [打印本页]
作者: 小目标750 时间: 2019-7-3 17:21
标题: 一道OG语法题： 关于时态
The computer company has announced that it will purchase the color-printing division of a rival company for $950 million, which is part of a deal that will make it the largest manufacturer in the office color-printing market.
A. million, which is part of a deal that will make
B. million, a part of a deal that makes
C. million, a part of a deal making
D. million as a part of a deal to make
E. million as part of a deal that will make
答案是E 。
我认为“ 一个句子时态要一致”直接排除了BC ; to make表达改变了 make 主语：The computer company ..make it 语义不合理， 排除D ； which修饰 $950 million 语义不合理， 排除A ； 最后选E
我想问一下： 如果没有明显不同的时时间状语/时间标志词， “ 一个句子时态要一致” 是不是“绝对错误考点”？？ 是否可以适用所有题目呢？？？
作者: 蟹黄味蚕豆 时间: 2019-7-3 21:12
一个句子时态要一致，这个点是从哪里来的呢？
作者: 小目标750 时间: 2019-7-4 10:37
我从OG--SC指南部分总结的， 指南里有讲 哪种时态一起使用是合理的， 哪种时态一起搭配是不合理的 （附上图片）。 我是不是这样总结是不对的？太绝对了？？
作者: 小目标750 时间: 2019-7-4 10:40
我从OG--SC指南部分总结的， 指南里有讲 哪种时态一起使用是合理的， 哪种时态一起搭配是不合理的 。 我是不是这样总结是不对的？太绝对了？？
“
Correct: "When the researcher begins the next phase of the experiment, she will have been working on the experiment for six weeks."
Incorrect: "When the researcher will begin the next phase of the experiment, she had been working on the experiment for six weeks."
The simple present, as used in the correct version, is the appropriate way in English to express a future event on which another future event is predicated. One could similarly use the present perfect has begun, which would have a slightly different nuance of meaning.In the incorrect version, when ... will begin is unidiomatic, and the past perfect had been working makes no sense in this future context.
Correct: "When I arrived at the office, my colleagues had already left."
Incorrect: "When I arrived at the office, my colleagues , will already have been leaving."
In the correct version, the past perfect form had left clearly indicates that the action of leaving was already completed at the past time referred to by the simple past form arrived. In the incorrect version, the future perfect progressive form makes no sense in relation to the overall past setting established by the verb arrived.
作者: 蟹黄味蚕豆 时间: 2019-7-4 12:06
我仔细读了好几遍，我还是没看出来OG如何说时态要一致，我的备考印象中也完全不记得有这么一条“hard rule”。
我个人认为，时态可以一致，也可以不一致，最核心的是句意顺畅，逻辑合理。OG的考点里面经常会提到logical prediction，时态表达出来的逻辑合理就是其中之一。你附上的OG给的这两个正确的句子，时态也并不一致。所以我认为你是过度总结了。
我们回到你问的那道题，OG的解答肯定是最权威的。你看看OG上对于BC的有没有说时态不好？我猜没有，应该说的同位语的修饰问题，a part of 这部分修饰的是million，句意上不合理。
作者: 小目标750 时间: 2019-7-4 12:58
我反思了一下，你说的是对的。句子时态一致不是“hard rule"， 最重要的是”时态表达出的逻辑合理“，关键在于语义。我不应该直接总结出这么一个结论。
我附上了OG对于这道题的解释（附件图片），这道题中announcement是面向未来的， 因此用将来时逻辑更加合理，而并不是因为时态要一致需要使用将来时。选项BC的绝对错误考点是同位语a part of a deal ...前面没有明确的指代对象。
真的感谢你的回复，让我思路清晰了许多
作者: 蟹黄味蚕豆 时间: 2019-7-4 14:02
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |