标题: OG13语法76，细节问题 [打印本页] 作者: 小皮球PAL 时间: 2012-11-30 22:07 标题: OG13语法76，细节问题 Combining enormous physical strength with higher intelligence, the Neanderthals appear to have been equipped to face any obstacle the environment could put in their path, but their relatively sudden disappearance during the Paleolithic era indicates that an inability to adapt to some environmental change led to their extinction.
红色部分人是正确的句子OG解释说因为N已经消失了，所以不能用一般现在时，应该改为to have been equipped.
HAVE BEEN不是表示对现在持续的影响吗？那用这个时态不是表示N现在还equipped to face ~~~这就表示N现在还存在呀？
原来的句子,the Neanderthals appear as equipped for facing any obstacle the environment could put in their path
这里用的appear as是不好还是错了了？ 作者: DesmondWang 时间: 2012-11-30 23:09
引用一下ron大神的解释： [this isn't a present perfect construction, because it's actually an infinitive. i.e., it's not "they have been equipped"; it's "they appear TO HAVE been equipped".
in any case, you should probably just memorize this construction as a one-off idiomatic structure. if you say "they seemed/appeared to...", then, no matter how remote the event is (in time), you use this construction.
for instance: it seems that the students cheated on the exam (normal past tense in this construction) but... the students seem to have cheated on the exam (not here)
in any case, though, you DO have to use an infinitive after "appear" or "seem" in this sort of construction. and if you think about it, this is as past-tense as an infinitive can get. so that's why you have to use ] 也就是说这里不是完成时态，而是用to+完成时态表达过去发生的事,是past tense; 我觉得意思是in present context, it appears to current people that Neanderthals were equipped to face any obstacle the environment could put in their path 还可以这么想不定式to后面一般只能跟动词原形do, 但如果这里用to do就没法表明时间顺序，所以要用to have done来表明这个动作发生在前，从而阐明时间顺序的先后，说明equip这个动作发生在appear前面（这段纯属自己YY） 另外，appear as adj./participal 是unidiomatic的；正确的用法是appear as sth./appear to do 现在完成时态表示 continued action or continued effect of a completed action up to the present作者: Effyue 时间: 2012-11-30 23:21
d作者: 小皮球PAL 时间: 2012-12-2 09:59
解释的很清楚，谢谢了 你知道为什么这里用path而不是paths吗作者: 小皮球PAL 时间: 2012-12-2 10:25
关于这个问题，还有一个很有用的贴，可以看看http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_SC/thread-65095-1-1.html作者: DesmondWang 时间: 2012-12-2 13:16
这个问题我的看法可能不具参考性了，我是觉得原文用了path，就是为了说明是所有Neanderthals共同走的那条path，只有一条；并且消失在这条path上面。 如果改成paths，说明他们有好几条path，也就是这帮人分散消失在很多条path上面，改变了原句的意思，原句的意思是不能改变的。 希望NN来给更加精确的答复。
