标题: prep08 217. (T-3-Q17) (天山-7-14)中的"they"指代 [打印本页] 作者: lvning 时间: 2013-3-23 12:42 标题: prep08 217. (T-3-Q17) (天山-7-14)中的"they"指代 217. (T-3-Q17)(天山-7-14)Not one of the potential investors isexpected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreementis signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were not tobe concluded. A. isexpected to make an offer to buy First Interstate Bank until a merger agreementis signed that includes a provision for penalties if the deal were B. isexpected to make an offer for buying First Interstate Bank until they sign amerger agreement including a provision for penalties if the deal was
解释说： they 无指代，但是明明指代“ investors ”，怎么理解？请指教！ 作者: DUKB24 时间: 2013-3-23 13:03
oh, the explanation is quite imprecisehere is my understanding，open to discussion
1. if you use the preferred rule in the pronoun ambiguity，this explanation makes sense
according to the grammatical case， they should firstly refer to the subject in the main clause，namely “ one of the potential investors” but it makes no sense to use an plural noun to take place a singular noun （ it is grammatical incorrect）
so， they have no antecedent
2. but if you just search the whole info provided by the sentence there is only one potentially correct antecedent to which they can refer so in this way， they seems plausible
in a word I don't think the use of they here is the most intolerable mistake the real problem is not in here作者: lvning 时间: 2013-3-23 14:41
二楼的大仙，太感谢您了。
对于这道题，我还有个考点不明白：
” 虚拟语气：与将来事实相反，条件从句的谓语be动词一律用were to+动词原形”
这个考点和 if A +Ved , B would +Ved.有什么联系和区别，为什么不能用was？ 我觉得根据虚拟语气的过去时态的句式，应该用Was没有错啊，为什么要用Were?