标题: 求教og12 133 [打印本页] 作者: appleontree 时间: 2010-9-6 01:49 标题: 求教og12 133 133. Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp’s ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.
(A) requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect
(B) requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
(C) that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect
(D) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting
(E) to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting
拙见作者: veryglad2cu 时间: 2010-9-6 14:56
试着解释一下。 要用requiring。OG里面说了“the clearest，most economical way to describe the laws in question is to follow the word laws with a present participle requiring”，不定式会产生歧义，导致devices成为law的目的，而其实真正的目的是保护海龟。 我觉得以后碰到法律后跟着法律内容的句子。就用ing就好了。因为clearest~most economical。
还有requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets这堆是修饰laws的。所以简化就是“compliance is protecting”B正确。作者: veryglad2cu 时间: 2010-9-6 15:00
我也有个问题。就是为什么requiring that turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets~~~~干嘛不加个be呢？？？我觉得有be很舒服啊。。。。。。。。作者: yexuu 时间: 2010-9-12 16:23
有be和没be表达的意思不太一样，这句话的原型应该是Laws require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets，后面的on shrimp nets是状语，就相当于I need a bed in my room。如果有了be的话，就变成require do结构了，侧重点在于需要这个赶乌龟的装置被放在虾网上，更强调这个动作，所以就逻辑上就不大对了作者: wanrita 时间: 2010-9-19 11:33
我自己试着分析看看： 本来句子可以是（如果觉得需要BE的话，那后面应该是个句子，所以得用that 从句） requiring (that) turtle-excluder devices (should be) on shrimp nets
