ChaseDream

标题: [求助]TTGWD29-14正确答案是否有歧义 [打印本页]

作者: benman 时间: 2006-8-28 17:12
标题: [求助]TTGWD29-14正确答案是否有歧义

In 1850 Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights and for changes in the married women’s property laws.

arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights
arguing in a treatise for equal political and legal rights for women
a treatise that advocates women’s equal political and legal rights
a treatise advocating women’s equal political and legal rights
a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women

这里答案选E，a treatise作同位语没有疑问，但是
for equal political and legal rights for women and for changes in the married women’s property laws中的三个for之间的并列关系是否有歧义？？？根据白痴原则，这里貌似是有问题滴。。。

作者: becharming 时间: 2006-8-28 17:24

for women前没有逗号，说明第二个for非并列关系

作者: benman 时间: 2006-8-28 17:28

以下是引用becharming在2006-8-28 17:24:00的发言：

for women前没有逗号，说明第二个for非并列关系

为啥需要逗号呢，可以举一个例子吗

作者: becharming 时间: 2006-8-28 17:50

两个以上并列成分，要用逗号分隔

You raised this question for youself, for me, and for all the friends here.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-8-28 17:50:15编辑过]

作者: benman 时间: 2006-8-28 17:57

以下是引用becharming在2006-8-28 17:50:00的发言：

两个以上并列成分，要用逗号分隔

You raised this question for youself, for me, and for all the friends here.

不不，MM误会我的意思了，我的意思是：

argue for equal political and legal rights for women and for changes in the married women’s property laws

是哪两个for并列？？？会不会有歧义

作者: becharming 时间: 2006-8-28 20:43

rights权利不会是for changes吧

作者: boochxu 时间: 2006-10-30 06:30
ding

作者: snowofjune 时间: 2007-12-10 14:19
我只知道advocate for, 不知道argue for 的用法

作者: yangfan8587 时间: 2009-8-20 10:40

很明显的结构层次混乱，三个for不知道哪两个在同一层次。

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