question about OG 26 - ChaseDream

Of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture, the possibility of an adverse change in climate is ......

the centric word in " of......" is disaster , and in "the possibility of......." is possibility ,

我们说:' 洪水给某地带来灾难" , 能不能说," 洪水的可能性给某地带来灾难" ? 显然不能, 所以洪水的可能性不是灾难, 洪水才是灾难, 换成天气变化也是一样.

苦思良久,不敢妄自否定ETS的权威性, 可又想不通, 请各位指教!

文章的本意是the possiblity of an adverse change is the most difficult to analyze, 而不是an adverse change in climate is the most difficult to analyze.所以主句里the possiblity 为主语。

从解释看(逻辑的句意也是这样)，all是同an对应的，那么此处的of短语修饰的应该是an后面的内容，所以这个句子其实倒装了，原先应该是这样的（要真是这样写，句子的重心就太偏了）

The possibility of an adverse change of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture in climate is probably the most difficult to analyze.

但是这样一来从语法上讲，我感觉有点不妥，所以从这一点上讲，ETS可能认逻辑是第一位的。而我们做题的时候更应该是首先看逻辑关系，然后才看语法关系。

以下是引用huhhuh在2004-8-3 18:29:00的发言：
我想特别说一下maybe 和 probably的区别，大家都说是maybe是口语 ets不爱用，其实我觉得这是xdf解释语法题目的一个借口。maybe是 perhaps, not sure, possible的意思，而 probably 则是 most likely to happen, like to be true，是非常肯定地意思。所以此处的区别并不是口语或者书面，未划线部分已经有一个Possible，肯定不能用maybe，这个是语义上的重复，而通过意思来判断也应该选 probably。一直觉得xdn的很多解释归于口语，书面的区分.... 有点糨糊....

新东方有些观点的确有问题，我想主要是因为东方的每个老师观点也都未必一样，更别说文人相轻，这一点在东方特别明显，这样一来缺少讨论，在对某些语法题得解释就比较片面，常常说一些ets规则之类的话。

不过关于maybe的说法我认为是正确的，longman也一直提到spoken的问题，

以下是引用kkgmat在2003-10-1 1:52:00的发言：
26. Of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture, the possibility of an adverse change in climates is probably the most difficult to analyze.

I have a question on the un-underlined part. It looks to me what follows "of all the possible disasters ..." should be "an adverse change ...", not "the possibility of ...", which is not in the same category of "all the possible disaster ..."

But it's from OG,so must be correct. Anyone can give me a light on this?

Thanks.

the possibility of an adverse change in climate就是one Of all the possible disasters。

因为ETS自己都老讲，前面的介词短语是修饰后面出现的名词。

事实上，你可以说an adverse change in climate是一个disaster。但是，在这儿，作者的意思可以理解为：一个气候的不利变化的可能性存在的本身就是一个disaster。如果确定存在一个气候的不利变化，也可能就不是disaster。我个人推测这是作者想表达的意思，和我们平时理解的不一样。事实上，ETS的文章，句子等都是从其他资料上找的，存在这种变态作者的可能性还是很大的。

如果不这么理解，就是句子的语法有问题。到底是按照自己的理解去推测句子有问题，还是承认句子语法没有问题进而去理解这个句子的意思呢？

Of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture, the possibility of an adverse change in climates is probably the most difficult to analyze.

Of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture 不是做整个句子的状语，而是做the possibility的定语。实际的句子是The possibility of an adverse change in climates of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture is probably the most difficult to analyze.

of an adverse change in climates 和of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture

都是定语修饰the possibility .但是由于1。这样的话，主语部分太长，头重脚轻，结构不平横

2。容易产生歧异，不知道of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture 的修饰对象是谁

The possibility of an adverse change of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture in climate is probably the most difficult to analyze.

The possibility of an adverse change is probably the most difficult to analyze of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture in climate

是possibility与all the possible disasters的比较，在逻辑意思上完全可以讲通，“在所有可能的灾难中”即表示的就是可能性，刚好与possibility比较。逻辑合理，功能也对，没什么争议的。

以下是引用colacat在2005-3-11 17:49:00的发言：

Of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture, the possibility of an adverse change in climates is probably the most difficult to analyze.

Of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture, the possibility of an adverse change in climates is probably the most difficult to analyze.

Of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture 不是做整个句子的状语，而是做the possibility的定语。实际的句子是The possibility of an adverse change in climates
of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture is probably the most difficult to analyze.

of an adverse change in climates 和of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture

都是定语修饰the possibility .但是由于1。这样的话，主语部分太长，头重脚轻，结构不平横

2。容易产生歧异，不知道of all the possible disasters that threaten American agriculture 的修饰对象是谁

所以把定语提前。

我觉得这个说法很有道理. 希望大家再讨论一下OF ALL....的结构, 把他彻底搞明白

那么后来的the possibility就是这个集合中的一个，这样的写法再平行不过了，如果只写adverse change就比较不那么直观，这样同样是possiblity会比较直观。

Of all the possibilities, the
possibility of adverse change..........还非得这样平行啊，ETS已经很平行了，possibility 我觉得原本是不需要的，可或许就是为了讲究直观平行才凸现出来。