ChaseDream

标题: og11 110关于sell的主动与被动 [打印本页]

作者: yer0120 时间: 2008-2-28 08:55
标题: og11 110关于sell的主动与被动

og11 110

In June of 1987, The Bridge of Trinquetaille, Vincent van Gogh's view of an iron bridge over the Rhone sold for $20.2 million and it was the second highest price ever paid for a painting at auction.

(A) Rhone sold for $20.2 million and it
was

(B) Rhone, which sold for $20.2 million, was

(D) Rhone was sold for $20.2 million, being

(E) Rhone, sold for $20.2 million, and was

按照og的解释，此处的sell用被动语态。

一直对sell这个动词的主动与被动用法有疑惑，

例如： The books sell well. 这是惯常用法，这里的sell主动表被动。

而在该题中为什么又需要用be sold呢？

有人可以解释一下吗？

作者: liu4949 时间: 2008-2-28 11:29

(A) Rhone sold for $20.2 million and it
was （it的指代优问题，前面有两个单数名词）

(B) Rhone, which sold for $20.2 million, was （which指代rhone错误）

(D) Rhone was sold for $20.2 million, being （being）

(E) Rhone, sold for $20.2 million, and was （and was的主语是The Bridge of Trinquetaille，The Bridge of Trinquetaille was 第二价钱错）

这体中，sell的用法不是关键

作者: yer0120 时间: 2008-2-28 23:15

谢谢LS的解答

可能我是钻牛角尖，这个问题一直困惑我

没有人可以解释一下吗？

作者: lonelyorchid 时间: 2008-2-29 00:11

是口语中的表达方式，在GMAT中，要遵循严格的书面语法规则

作者: smiling_cd 时间: 2009-1-3 11:09

以下是引用lonelyorchid在2008-2-29 0:11:00的发言：

是口语中的表达方式，在GMAT中，要遵循严格的书面语法规则

-- The books sell well.是口语的表达方式吗？书面语不可以？

作者: SHJDHKBB9 时间: 2009-1-3 20:18

GMAT考的是标准书面英语,in other words,语言表达要简洁且有效.

The books sell well.(book发出主动的sell动作不合逻辑), 明显没有The books is sold well. 表达清晰准确.

作者: 小贝 时间: 2009-1-4 00:50

以下是引用SHJDHKBB9在2009-1-3 20:18:00的发言：

GMAT考的是标准书面英语,in other words,语言表达要简洁且有效.

The books sell well.(book发出主动的sell动作不合逻辑), 明显没有The books is sold well. 表达清晰准确.

sell是一个可以用主动形式表被动意思的词。

作者: msuzengli 时间: 2009-1-4 01:17

我查了一下,sell well是畅销的意思.貌似只有sell well能那么用.

作者: dphxmg 时间: 2009-1-4 23:41
"Something sells for a price." is a proper expression. For example, "Smoke alarms sell for as little as five pounds."(taken from The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English Updated Edition)
Just use it.

If B were correct, the sentence would be "The Bridge of Trinquetaille...is the second highest price...", which is nonsense. Here the syntax not the grammar is wrong. Seond, it is quite awkward at least for me to use two incidental parts consecutively -- 'the Van Gough's view...' and 'which sold for...'-- to describe the subject. As you can see easily, this structure will take you ages to get to the verb and the object of sentence. In fact, a long incidental part can slow the reader down in getting the gist of a sentence.

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