ChaseDream

标题: tianshan [打印本页]

作者: kevin_ws    时间: 2004-6-9 08:10
标题: tianshan

By law, a qualified physician can only prescribe medicine, protecting the public.


(A) By law, a qualified physician can only prescribe medicine, protecting the public.


(B) By law, only a qualified physician can prescribe medicine, protecting the public.


(C) By law, only a qualified physician can prescribe medicine which protects the public.


(D) In order to protect the public, by law a qualified physician only can prescribe medicine.(E)


(E) In order to protect the public, by law only a qualified physician can prescribe medicine


WHY CHOICE (E),ONLY的用法到底是怎样的啊,不是说轻易不要改变ONLY的位置吗,请NN们给点详细的说明


作者: rt316    时间: 2004-6-9 10:09

个人认为这道题有点难。正如你所言,一般情况下,不应该改动only这种比较特殊的修饰词,但是,本句的only如果不改动位置,则句子的逻辑性就有问题了。如A:by law(根据法律),a qualified physician can only prescribe medicine(有资格的医生只能开药),protecting the public(保护大众)。从翻译来看,这种逻辑感觉很别扭。再如E:in order to protect the public(为了保护大众),by law(根据法律) only a qualified physician can prescribe medicine(只有有资格的医生才能开药),这种说法至少很合乎常理。至于为什么protecting the public被改为in order to protect the public,我也不是很确定,因为我一开始认为protecting作为一个伴随结果修饰主句,从这个角度,我们至少可以排除C,在B/E之间,我认为可能的解释是:protecting the public的修饰对象比较模糊,其可以修饰主句,也可以作为是主句成分打断了By law protecting the public的结构,这样的话,law和protect之间的目的行为关系就比较明确了,所以in order to就比较合理。


对于ETS来说,他可能就说句子有很强的因果关系,所以用in order to。看到这种解释,你也没辙。就这么熟悉熟悉感觉吧。


[此贴子已经被作者于2004-6-9 10:11:02编辑过]





欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3