ChaseDream
标题: perp 1-36和prep 1-37 的比较问题... [打印本页]
作者: aeoluseros 时间: 2008-9-2 22:40
标题: perp 1-36和prep 1-37 的比较问题...
prep 1-36
Thomas Eakins's powerful style and his choices of subject--the advances in modern surgery, the discipline of sport, the strains of individuals in tension with society or even with themselves--was as disturbing to his own time as it is compelling for ours.
(A) was as disturbing to his own time as it is
(B) were as disturbing to his own time as they are
(C) has been as disturbing in his own time as they are
(D) had been as disturbing in his own time as it was
(E) have been as disturbing in his own time as
answer: B
are确实需要补出，因为时态变化了，可是不是很明白为什么要补出they，白勇的书上说“比较从句的主语与主句主语相同，可以省略”...望NN们帮我解释...
prep 1-37
One report concludes that many schools do not have, or likely to have, enough computers to use them effectively.
(A) or
(B) nor
(C) or are
(D) nor are they
(E) nor are not
answer D
D选项，确实需要将are补出，因为be likely to do...可是为什么把they也补出了呢？白勇的书上说“平行并列结构中相同的主语可以省略(只要没有歧义)”
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-3 0:32:37编辑过]
作者: aeoluseros 时间: 2008-9-2 23:37
annoyed....
作者: AlienX 时间: 2008-9-3 01:39
如果"比較"謂語時nor句的主語留下..
不是很決定....等我回到家時再想想....
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-3 1:43:48编辑过]
作者: AlienX 时间: 2008-9-3 10:50
比較中的省略, 基本的NN貼了無數次...
可是省略的原則是
1. 不會造成歧異下省(基本上看grammar)
2. 會不會念一遍時不清楚(GMAC中的定義: concise, clear)
#2比較難...因為大家的母語不是English...
所以書上(e.g. LZM, BY)只能用一樣不是非常absolute的方法去定義(e.g. phrase太長/太複習=unclear/not concise)
prep1-36好像在OG10上有
anyway, 來用一下"不是非常absolute的方法去定義"去define "clear"/"concise":
Thomas Eakins's powerful style and his choices of subject--the advances in modern surgery, the discipline of sport, the strains of individuals in tension with society or even with themselves--were as disturbing to his own time as they are.
"Thomas Eakins's powerful style and his choices of subject"有點complex
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardID=23&ID=60087&page=1
上面的可以see as an illustration...."people"=simple, 所以省了...
Anyway, 可能有NN可給更absolute的rule...
作者: aeoluseros 时间: 2008-9-3 13:01
因为主语的复杂性，习惯于补出主语---这点貌似很能讲通。如果这么延伸的话，1-37也是因为两个主语的嵌套了，所以加了they。
确实加了主语更加通顺，读句子的时候能够“呼吸”...
恩，暂且如此记下了，感谢AlienX~
作者: AlienX 时间: 2008-9-3 13:30
umm...對於nor, 好像沒有見過省略主語(如果不是比object的話)...
跟whether subject is complex無關...
作者: aeoluseros 时间: 2008-9-3 13:55
[attachimg]67166[/attachimg]
查了一下张道真的语用字典：
1-37应该是作为引导并列成分用的，2里面的前两个句子(She did not stir nor look up；For ten days he did not see Tanis nor telephone to her.)貌似表明了，不用再加主语的情况也是有的...不过...这两个个主语确实是rather simple...而且也不是引导分句
而第三个里面not引导分句的例子无一例外都是补全了主谓，恩，我认为可以下此论断了。
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-3 18:56:27编辑过]
作者: 800liang 时间: 2008-9-3 18:16
You can not do so, nor can I 只是个倒装而已
作者: jonathan1987 时间: 2008-12-15 20:01
up
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-12-15 20:04:44编辑过]
作者: alexshihj 时间: 2009-2-28 22:37
37. (26417-!-item-!-188;#058&002629)
One report concludes that many schools do not have, or likely to have, enough computers to use them effectively.
(A) or
(B) nor
(C) or are
(D) nor are they
(E) nor are not
看了很多前人对nor用法的讨论。我想问nor引导的句子在原文中起到什么作用呢？我觉得 由连词引导的独立分句的话插在一句话中表达上很奇怪。
字典上没有查到。没有例句是将一个补出主谓语的结构插在一句话的中间的。
作者: tonect 时间: 2009-3-1 01:42
高水平NN的讨论，我是来呼吸的
haha
作者: smartsky11 时间: 2009-3-27 10:58
up
作者: cuishang11 时间: 2009-4-15 00:09
我怎么总觉得1-37的D选项中的they和them指代的对象不一致呢？
作者: sunny8843 时间: 2009-8-5 13:18
up
作者: ed88student 时间: 2009-8-19 17:23
以下是引用cuishang11在2009/4/15 0:09:00的发言：
我怎么总觉得1-37的D选项中的they和them指代的对象不一致呢？
同问,坐等解释
作者: z89113570 时间: 2009-9-1 11:22
/
作者: liuxy1234 时间: 2009-9-16 15:29
关于P1-37我也有个疑问：答案D补出的they和句尾的them指代并不相同啊？盼高手给予指点！！！
作者: yinan 时间: 2009-9-17 21:31
ls的，og中就有同一个句子指代不一致的，这个点已经不能被轻易的用来判断对错了
作者: liuxy1234 时间: 2009-9-23 17:36
楼主的疑惑挺有道理，但据我的经验，只要选出正确答案并且知道别的答案为何错就打住了，否则很多正确答案都经不起很细的推敲滴~
作者: medyhui 时间: 2010-9-13 17:33
1-36还是不懂丫..
B 选项 were as disturbing to his own time as they are
为什么用过去式不用E的完成时, 为什么前面用过去后面用现在，as..as..不应该前后平行么？
还有，为什么要补充主语啊？ 主语就一个没有歧义啊...
所以 为啥E不对呢...
作者: nancyhearste 时间: 2010-10-21 22:56
prep 1-36
Thomas Eakins's powerful style and his choices of subject--the advances in modern surgery, the discipline of sport, the strains of individuals in tension with society or even with themselves--was as disturbing to his own time as it is compelling for ours.
(A) was as disturbing to his own time as it is
(B) were as disturbing to his own time as they are
(C) has been as disturbing in his own time as they are
(D) had been as disturbing in his own time as it was
(E) have been as disturbing in his own time as
answer: B
are确实需要补出，因为时态变化了，可是不是很明白为什么要补出they，白勇的书上说“比较从句的主语与主句主语相同，可以省略”...望NN们帮我解释...
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-3 0:32:37编辑过]
-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2008/9/2 22:40:00)
不是NN，发表一下自己的看法，我觉得助动词是否补出，是相对主语来说的，如果只补出助动词，而没有相应的主语与其对应是没有意义的，因为不能清楚的显示这个动作的发动者。所以只要有补出助动词，那么必然会出现主语也补出。但是OG11-37这题很特殊，因为主语American已经是比较的一部分了，所以省略了，当然这种情况还是很少见的。
鄙人愚见，欢迎指正！
作者: stleung 时间: 2011-8-4 10:37
E是肯定不对了，因为句子中没有完成时态的迹象，一开始自己也考虑是E，也是基于平行条件，但是后来仔细想想发现E的确不行，至于为什么是B我也没想明白，估计是比较之下相对准确表达的原则吧！~
作者: kathytc 时间: 2011-11-30 07:37
同不明白
作者: Rolita 时间: 2012-2-20 18:23
67166
查了一下张道真的语用字典：
1-37应该是作为引导并列成分用的，2里面的前两个句子(She did not stir nor look up；For ten days he did not see Tanis nor telephone to her.)貌似表明了，不用再加主语的情况也是有的...不过...这两个个主语确实是rather simple...而且也不是引导分句
而第三个里面not引导分句的例子无一例外都是补全了主谓，恩，我认为可以下此论断了。
[此贴子已经被作者于2008-9-3 18:56:27编辑过]
-- by 会员 aeoluseros (2008/9/3 13:55:00)
作者: 爱力宏的小搓板 时间: 2012-12-16 22:20
as。。。。as 这边是不是并列呀？？？
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) |
Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |