ChaseDream

标题: 总结前人们的for to用法，加自己的疑惑，求助，这个应该可以申精 [打印本页]

作者: crack25 时间: 2011-8-20 21:02
标题: 总结前人们的for to用法，加自己的疑惑，求助，这个应该可以申精
求证关于for ,to的区分

搜索了前人的总结

现在给出问题，希望各位帮助

19Scientists claim that the discovery of the first authenticated mammal bones in amber could provide important clues of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies.

A.of determining, in addition to how, when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies

B.in the determination of how and when the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals

C.to determine how mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies and when they did

D.for determining when the islands of the West Indies were colonized by mammals and how they were

E.for determining how and when mammals colonized the islands of the West Indies

原文clues of determining的结构,看出ETS是想表达determine是用来修饰clue的，做clue的定语，而不是用来表目的的。所以C中的to结构可以看做是修改原文的意思，应该舍弃。但查询了朗文，clue后一般跟的是 clue to/ as to /about + sth. 的结构，所以又怀疑应该是C，但考虑到如果是clue to sth.结构，to 后一定要跟的是名词，则determine一定要用动名词结构，而不能用动词结构。所以C的错误比较明显。还有下面这个题也有类似现象。C和D争论很大，到现在也没有具体定论。选C的原因是因为to rate表示目的很清晰，天文学家发展了一种刻度是为了定级...。但我觉得原文给出了暗示，a scale rates the likihood...，说明原文的意思是scale 和 liklihood之间是个主谓关系，因此不是C中的表目的结构。而D中for rating是用来修饰scale，补充说明scale的作用，更符合原文的意思。

这题也同样，provide的发出者是amber而不是scientist，amber提供clue只是能determine而不是为了determine

这个crack有个问题，这里说得逻辑主语是指哪个？怎判断，因为我认为逻辑主语是bones,怎出来个amber!!!???

17. GWD-26-Q17

Responding to the public’s fascination with-and sometimes undue alarm over-possible threats from asteroids, a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihood that a particular asteroid or comet may collide with Earth.

A.a scale developed by astronomers rates the likelihoodthat a particular asteroid or comet may

B.a scale that astronomers have developed rates how likely it is for a particular asteroid or comet to

C.astronomers have developed a scale to rate how likely a particular asteroid or comet will be to

D.astronomers have developed a scale for rating thelikelihood that a particular asteroid or comet will

E.astronomers have developed a scale that rates thelikelihood of a particular asteroid or comet that may

但目前还未找到其他的题，因此只能先借这两个题做个小结，希望大家多讨论.赞同。给出另一类似题。DE之间有争议，答案为D。此题更为单纯，所以对provide sth for doing的讨论更为成熟。一般认为for doing单纯表目的，是对前面名词的补充说明。而to do会有逻辑主语的问题。

我问：“to do会有逻辑主语的问题“。这个为啥会有逻辑主语的问题！！

GWD-18-Q1

New genetic evidence—together with recent studies of elephants’ skeletons, tusks, and other anatomical features—provide compelling support for classifying Africa’s forest elephants and its savanna elephants as separate species.

A.provide compelling support for classifying

B.provide compelling support for the classification of

C.provides compelling support to the classification of

D.provides compelling support for classifying

E.provides compelling support to classify

Jj,你去比较这个事件到底是为了确定某个东西，还是为了（证明）某个东西，，（TAREN）provide的主语是evidence，E选项有evidence提供support为了classify的意思，逻辑意思显然出了了问题///

同上这个怎样理解逻辑主语？

作者: yichousun 时间: 2011-8-20 22:06
这些的确很有诱惑性。其实你自己也差不多分析出来了。to do（动词不定式）表示动作的目的；for doing做定语，修饰前面的noun。别太纠结了！

作者: crack25 时间: 2011-8-21 16:44
可是这个具体的判断原则，怎感觉不明白？

比如，scale这个就是，他的逻辑主语就是astronomers,而不是scale 本身的这个，

因为现在突然不会做关于todo的题目了

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