标题: （斑竹们，NN们）问道prep笔记里面木有提及的语法点（新prep1-200） [打印本页] 作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-9-1 14:22 标题: （斑竹们，NN们）问道prep笔记里面木有提及的语法点（新prep1-200） A scrub jay can remember when it cached a particular piece of food in a particular place, researchers have discovered, and tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if stored long enough to have rotted. A. tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if B. they tend not to bother recovering a perishable treat C. tending not to bother to recover a perishable treat it D. tends not to bother recovering a perishable treat E. tends not bothering to recover a perishable treat it
只问一个语法点：E选项的it，指代scrub jay没争议
我在想后面的这个结构可否理解为recover a perishable treat （that）it stored long enough to have rotted
还原之后就是it stored a perishable treat long enough to have rotted（不知道意思层面是否有转变呢？还是单纯的wody？另外to have done这里的用法怎么理解呢？）
国外instructor的理解和我很不相同，所以求点拨
mitch： The grammatical implication of IT stored long enough to have rotted is that stored long enough to have rotted --the entire structure -- refers to IT (the scrub jay). Here, storedseems to function as a VERB, the subject of which is IT. What did IT do? It STORED. HOW did it store? It stored LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE ROTTED.
和我说的木有矛盾作者: Suri在奋斗 时间: 2012-9-1 15:58
首先，我觉得 it stored long enough没有问题，但是时态，你看整个句子就在讲个发生的客观事情而已，没有必要突然出来个过去时呀 to have done 这个用法 感觉好像总是在it is said/reported to have done 表示done 这个动作发生在据说/报道之前 而且你看a perishable treat （that)it stored long enough to have rotted 这个to have done 的动作发出者好像 变成 it ( a scrub jay) 不对吧，逻辑意思 意思感觉就这样别扭的作者: Suri在奋斗 时间: 2012-9-1 16:00
或者这个to have done 不在定语从句内，你把定语从句省略住不看 a srub jay tends not bothering to recover a perishable treat to have done 你看这个to have done的主语还是 a srub jay作者: Suri在奋斗 时间: 2012-9-1 16:02
鸟腐烂了 不对吧作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-9-1 16:08
鸟腐烂了 不对吧
-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/9/1 16:02:04)
suri那原句的stored long enough to have rotted怎么理解
umm我也觉得时态那里问题，而且后面有表目的的歧义，这个我也有看出来作者: Suri在奋斗 时间: 2012-9-1 16:13
if (the perishable treat is ) stored enough 是省略句 虽然严格意义来说这样省略也不对作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-9-1 16:17
if (the perishable treat is ) stored enough 是省略句 虽然严格意义来说这样省略也不对
-- by 会员 Suri在奋斗 (2012/9/1 16:13:03)
我说错了。。。应该是正确选项的后面那里stored long enough to have rotted 黑体字这里的用法作者: yakev6 时间: 2012-9-1 16:21
质疑下来源。。。那个到底是it 还是if作者: Suri在奋斗 时间: 2012-9-1 16:23
stored long enough to have rotted 我觉得这一段是整体 就是过去分词修饰perishable 然后加to 表示目的，to have rotted的发出者还是perishable treat 这样说不知道说清楚没有 举个例子 a house decorated well to sell a good price作者: Suri在奋斗 时间: 2012-9-1 16:24
基本上同意dd。刚到酒店，洗完澡再打字。
-- by 会员 yakev6 (2012/9/1 16:21:32)
同意哪点呀 大叔又出去玩啦啊作者: yakev6 时间: 2012-9-1 16:38
这题GWD给的和prep破解给的略有不同，看上去GWD的更靠谱点。 T-3-Q14. A scrub jay can remember when it cached a particular piece of food in a particular place, researchers have discovered, and tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if stored long enough to have rotted. A. tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if B. they tend not to bother recovering a perishable treat C. tending not to bother recovering a perishable treat if D. tends not to bother recovering a perishable treat E. tends not bothering to recover a perishable treat if作者: yakev6 时间: 2012-9-1 16:38
it 可以解释，但是太awkward了，还有正确句子是D，你问什么要justify一个错误的句子呢？作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-9-1 20:44
跪了，封贴。。。。
尼玛原来那个if是未划线的，作者: 莽莽要上7 时间: 2012-9-2 00:01
我是这样想的，it在没有划线部分已经出现过。而句子中相同代词一般指代同一N. 没有划线的部分指代的是jay，所以这里的it就有指代鸟的歧义存在。所以，你quote的那人解释才会有The grammatical implication of IT stored long enough to have rotted is that stored long enough to have rotted --the entire structure -- refers to IT (the scrub jay). IT指的JAY，而不是treat。it指代对象没有争议。
而且，你说的“我在想后面的这个结构可否理解为recover a perishable treat （that）it stored long enough to have rotted" 原句从逻辑上看应该是个定从，stored那些就是修饰成分。我觉得错误有2：1. that已经可以替代了前面想要修饰的perishable treat，所以这里应该it没有指代的对象。如果it只treat的话，则redundant了就~2. that it stored ....后面的stored确实正如你quote那人的说法，有做verb的歧义。定从么是个完整的句子成分，that从句主谓宾都有。但是是什么stored了呢？不知道啊~