以下是引用rabbitbug在2004-1-15 14:22:00的发言: 八戒GG的问题可真的问中了要害, 呵呵, 我的一点拙见: 先看OG67 67. Congress is debating a bill requiring certain employers (provide workers with unpaid leave so as to) care for sick or newbom children. (A) provide workers with unpaid leave so as to (B) to provide workers with unpaid leave so as to (C) provide workers with unpaid leave in order that they (D) to provide workers with unpaid leave so that they can (E) provide workers with unpaid leave and 解释这么说: in order that they, as used in C, is imprecise and unidiomatic.
再看OG171, 171. In 1527 King Henry VIII sought to have his marriage to Queen Catherine annulled (so as to marry) Anne Boleyn. (A) so as to marry (B) and so could be married to (C) to be married to (D) so that he could marry (E) in order that he would marry 解释这么说: Although E uses an appropriate conjunction, in order that, the verb form would marry is unidiomatic and illogical
比较了一下这两个题的解释, 第一个ETS就说in order that不符合用法规范且罗嗦, 而第二个ETS却说in order that用的很对, 问题在他处.
那么, 问题就在于这两个题本身上面, 我发现OG67, 施动者employers, 被动者workers, 而后面的so that从句的主语要求是workers, 这样, 造成in order that不可以, 而只能用so that. 相对的OG171里面, 施动者KIng, 被动者queen, so that的主语he(King), 这时in order that 就可以和so that互换了. 因此, in order that语气比较强, 对应的是施动者, 而so that 就比较灵活, 应用范围也比较广.
这只是我根据OG的解释自己推断的, 大家广泛验证一下, 多多指正!
俺凭空感觉好像是这样,听rabbitbug的一番话,才理清思路
举脚同意JJ的分析,果然很有条理,很清晰,受益啊~~~~
|