关于og-31中admit的用法

看了很多帖子，对于og解释中admit与admit to 之间的区别我还是搞不太清，刚才搜索到下面的东西，似乎有点启发，但对于我理解这个题目中的admit用法还不是十分透彻。不知道ets是遵循的什么样的语法规则。

ADMIT用法译评

吴国良
        （宁波高等专科学校，浙江
        宁波 315010）

[摘要]
        传统英语对常用动词admit的用法特征的研究大都停留在结构形式上，缺乏深层次的语义分析。本文拟从语言学的角度对admit进行用法译评，以求对该词潜在用法作理论阐述。

[关键词]
        特征；语义；译评

[中图分类号] H313            [文献标识码] B        [文章编号] 1000-6141（2001）02-0041-02

《Cambridge Dictionary of American English》（Cambridge University Press 2000）给admit的一个注释是：to recognize or accept (something)as true: He admitted his guilt. She admitted (that) she had made a mistake.理解这种定义并不难，但admit与recognize在深层次含义上是有区别的，不了解这一点，很容易犯用法上的错误。

Collins Cobuild在《Student’s Dictionary》中的描述值得一提：If you admit that something bad or embarrassing is true, you agree, often reluctantly, that it is true. Up to two thirds of 14 to 16 year olds admit to buying drink illegally…None of these people will admit responsibility.这里的关键词是“relucatantly”。也就是说，admit的“承认”往往带有“不太情愿”的意思。对此，最新出版的《The New Oxford Dictionary of English》（1998）也提到“typically with reluctance”。《Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English》则认为是“unwillingly”。此外，语言学家Harry Shaw认为“Admit also suggests the influence of pressure”。也就是说admit还含有“压力的影响”这层含义。

语言学家Palmer指出：admit and confess often occur with the preposition to when followed by the ing form. I admit to being a fool.

语言学研究表明，admit作“承认”解时，后面接动名词，不接不定式。一般地说来，对此语言学家有比较一致的共识。但对ING前是否加to，则是众说纷纭，莫衷一是。Harry Shaw在《Dictionary of Problem Words and Expressions》中说：The preposition to is unnecessary in such statements as “I admit (to) the mistake” and “I admit (to) having made an error.”《The Penguin Working Words》也告诫人们：Do not use the preposition to with this word in the following construction: Admit your mistake. not: Admit to your mistake.”但是你可以说Admit your mistake to the supervisor.语言学家F T Wood认为：When it means either “confess” or “allow the enter”, admit is a transitive verb, and takes no preposition.不过，他的说法多少带有点语言纯正主义的色彩。

Dixon比较开明些，他注意到这样一个事实：“Admit may, for some speakers, optionally include to before the object.”当用admit时，则其主要兴趣可能放在宾语成分上（主语所干的事），它可能是个新信息。

至于admit后不用不定式，而用动名词，这也不是偶然的。Bill Bryson在《Dictionary of Troublesome Words》一书中把下面这句列为错句*Pretoria admits to raid against Angda.他没有说明潜在理由。我们认为这种用法限制与不定式及ING形式的潜在功能不无关联。这里完全可用Bolinger原则来加以解释。Bolinger认为：There seems to be an underlying semantic principle: the infinitive very often expresses something ”hypothetical, future, unfulfilled,” whereas the gerund typically expresses something” real, vivid, fulfilled.”基于admit的内在语义，不难理解：人们只能“承认”已经发生的事情，因此其后跟动名词用法是事出有因的。

值得注意的是：语言学界对admit of有过不少关注，因为就非英语为本族语者而言，对于admit of，比较容易犯用法错误。

Chambers的《Universal Learners’ Dictionary》在admit栏目中讲到了后跟of的用法：(formal: with of: not used with is , was etc and –ing) to allow: This admits of no other
            explanation.这种说法有一定道理，可惜不够全面。

《The Right Word at the Right Time》一书认为：短语to admit of 现在的意思只指“允许有……的可能，留有……的余地”，作其他各种意思时，不再能代替admit；不能说* I admit of the justice of your claim.

Fowler 指出：The combination admit of is more limited in application than it once was and that it usually takes a nonhuman subject.

F T Wood认为：Admit may take a personal subject, and indeed usually does, but admit of (meaning ‘to allow of, leave room for’) cannot:

I admit breaking the window.

She admitted having read the letter.

但是我们说：

The position admits of no delay.

The regulations admit of no variation.

却不能说：

* I cannot admit of your doing that.

* I admit of a certain margin of error in my proposals.

* The managers admit of no further discussion of the subject.

Chamber Dictionary (1985)对于admit of 的用法说得更为明确：The subject of the verb…must always be impersonal or abstract.

我们认为admit of的主语受到限制已为语言实际所证明。Chamber Dictionary的说法是有一定根据的，只是说法上似乎过于绝对化了些。应该说，一般地来说，admit of的主语是非人称的或是抽象的。有时甚至有用clause来当主语的：That Edmund must be for ever divided from Miss Crawford did not admit of a doubt with Fanny.《Werriam Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage》认为用人称作主语仅仅偶见于现代散文。笔者在国外的大型计算机语料库上所有admit of的主语几乎均是非人称的。

此外，admit的派生词admission和admittance也有不少差异，限于篇幅不在此详述。

综上所述，英语动词admit有许多值得注意的用法特征，而这些特征又有潜在的语义背景，研究其深层次的语义特点无疑有助于我们对该词汇的用法作某些理性的思考，从而真正做到“The Right Word at the Right Time”。

以上是自己学习和研究admit及相关词汇用法特征的一些看法。不当之处，盼前辈和同行指正。

注：打*号的为不合文法的结构。

lz的钻研精神让人敬佩，感动！！！时隔半年的贴子也得顶一个

我有一个疑问，这道题我看了以前很多讨论，还是不太明白admit的用法。目前我只知道OG10中有两道题106和31是有admit to这种用法的。106不在划线部分就不说了。不知道lz有没有注意到OG11对这道题的解释：

E Have a disinclination is wordy(the verb disinclined is preferred) and, when followed by while willing, creates an incomplete construction.

在这个解释中根本就没有提到OG10中的“admit their lack should be admit to their lack”。

但是OG10中提到的如weak to a degree等等的错误OG11还是如数家珍地搬了出来。

所以让人怀疑现在连GMAC也在反省反省再反省后否定了以前用admit和admit to这种微小区别对考生造成极大困扰的令人发指的做法

admit to的用法最近还有一个同志举的反例，见：

http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=23&ID=244179&replyID=&skin=1

31. Unlike computer skills or other technical skills, there is a disinclination on the part of many people to recognize the degree to which their analytical skills are weak.

(A)  Unlike computer skills or other technical skills, there is a disinclination on the part of many people to recognize the degree to which their analytical skills are weak.

(B)  Unlike computer skills or other technical skills, which they admit they lack, many people are disinclined to recognize that their analytical skills are weak.

(C)  Unlike computer skills or other technical skills, analytical skills bring out a disinclination in many people to recognize that they are weak to a degree.

(D)  Many people, willing to admit that they lack computer skills or other technical skills, are disinclined to recognize that their analytical skills are weak.

        (E) Many people have a disinclination to recognize the weakness of their analytical skills while willing to admit their lack of computer skills or other technical skills.

OG31(OG11-68) 我给贴出来了。