gwd14-14 (gwd17-14)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. GWD17-Q14:

Whereas lines of competition are clearly defined in the more established industries, in the Internet industry they are blurred and indistinct, as companies that compete one day may be partners the next.

1. Whereas lines of competition are clearly defined in the more established industries, in the Internet industry they are blurred and indistinct, as companies that compete
2. Although the lines of competition are clearly defined in industries that are more established, they are blurred and indistinct in the Internet industry, as competing companies
3. The lines of competition are clearly defined in the more established industries, unlike the Internet where they are blurred and indistinct, as companies that compete
4. Unlike more established industries, where the lines of competition are clearly defined, they are burred and indistinct in the Internet industry, as companies that compete
5. Unlike more established industries, with clearly defined lines of competition, those of the Internet industry are blurred and indistinct, as competing companies

The answer is B, I am wondering if A is better.

I do admit "industries that are more established" is more precise than "more established industries" since the latter is not clear about weather "more" modifies "established" or "industries", but is it wired to say "competing companies one day may be partners the next" if B is the answer? On the contrast,  "companies that compete one day may be partners the next" feel much better.

Please help !

既然one day也可以理解成修饰整个句子，为什么就认为A的one day就是只修饰compete的？

但是注意了，这里的one day不是有一天的意思，而是曾经的意思，和next day对应

还是认为A对：more established

B的they一般是指主语的Lines所以不对

competing不是一直在进行的，而且是一个动词，所以用定语从句比较好，而且One day也可以修饰compete动词了

如果表示竞争对手的形容词其实有很多啊，competing我觉得不合适

I dont think so.

Possibility 1: If "as" is a conj. here, means "because", then I think we dont need parallelism, does it?

Possibility 2: If "as"is a conj. and means "like, equally", then A and B would have the same problem, right? Because:

A:

Whereas lines of competition are clearly defined in the more established industries, in the Internet industry they are blurred and indistinct, as companies that compete one day may be partners the next.

"lines of competition" and "they" match, but "companies" are not same type of things as them.

But B:

We do have the same problem here, right? "lines of competition" and "they" match, but " competing companies" are not same type of things as them since the center of the subject is still "companies" modified by "competing".

That is why I think "as" is a conj. here and means "because/since" so does not really need parallelism. That is why I still vote for A. Please correct me if I am wrong with more explaination.

Besides, I still kind of feel wired about "as competing companies one day may be partners the next". I never saw this usage before. What is the use of "one day" and what does it modify? Any good example about this usage?

除了比较对象一致，我觉得句末是个突破口

A中as companies that compete one day may be partners the next.是错误结构

A是不行的

只有BE在句末能说通

而E不对称，大家公认，所以B

why?

as companies that compete one day may be partners the next.

我知道lz意思是that compete做companies的定语从句，

但是，不啰嗦吗，我把这种结构当作错误结构，不论是日常说话，还是书面写作

Lz可能会说：OK，one day就是修饰compete，我认为，非

有朝一日是修饰可能会（成为合作伙伴）而不是compete

我也选A, 但是读完B觉得更通顺

首先 A companies that compete 后面没有with each other 之类的跟着读上去别扭

查了GOOGLE company that compete 后面都跟一个完整句子,没有到compete就戛然而止的,compete是vi

而查competing company 就有很多例句了

而且A 的意思是后半部分转折，因此whereas应放在后半句，或者象B一样在句首改成ALTHOUGH

A改成 whereas they are blurred and indistinct in the Internet industry，as companies that compete with each other one day may be partners the next day就比B更通顺简洁了，因为B中的in industries that are more established的确没有A的 the more established industries简洁

How about this?

The issue has to do with "compete." Competing is the best option here because it represents a non-finite clause. The companies are competing and will continue to compete in the future. Relative clause implies that an action happens only one time.

Does this rule/reason stand? I do remember XDF talked about this rule.

Plz advice,

以前的讨论贴里面多数人支持A。

最近的怎么支持B的多了？