OG30和OG32_關於不同時態修飾同一主語的問題

What was as remarkable as the development of the compact disc has been the use of the new technology to revitalize, in better sound than was ever before possible, some of the classic recorded performances of the pre-LP era.

(A) What was as remarkable as the development of the compact disc

(B) The thing that was as remarkable as developing the compact disc

(C) No less remarkable than the development of the compact disc

(D) Developing the compact disc has been none the less remarkable than（C）

(E) Development of the compact disc has been no less remarkable as

32.

Some buildings that were destroyed and heavily damaged in the earthquake last year were constructed in violation of the city’s building code.

(A) Some buildings that were destroyed and heavily damaged in the earthquake last year were

(B) Some buildings that were destroyed or heavily damaged in the earthquake last year had been

(C) Some buildings that the earthquake destroyed and heavily damaged last year have been

(D) Last year the earthquake destroyed or heavily damaged some buildings that have been（B）

(E) Last year some of the buildings that were destroyed or heavily damaged in the earthquake had been

可以理解正確答案的理由

但是在30題中

Besides being wordy, the clauses beginning What was in A and The thing that was in B cause inconsistencies in verb tense: the use of the new technology cannot logically be described by both the present perfect has been and the past was. 解釋說不可以用兩種不同時態修飾同一個主語

為什麼在32題中 building that ..were ...last year had beed ....用兩種不同時態同時指向building 卻又成立

當作題時碰到這類問題時 是不是有啥規律 哪位NN幫幫忙吧

我是菜鸟~

32题constructed发生在destroyed和damaged之前,发生在过去的过去，所以用过去完成时。这里有个时间的先后顺序。

而30题中没有这个时间的先后顺序问题。

不同时态混用是指现在时态和过去时态。

而32题用得是过去时态中的（一般过去时和过去完成时）

同意啊。

thX sweetar 好像有點懂了

現有另一各想法

如果把OG30 的(C)選項改為

Some buildings that the earthquake destroyed or heavily damaged last year have been constructed in violation of the city’s building code. (去年被地震摧毀或破壞的建築物已經被設為這個城市的危險標的)

這樣有違反 30題中

Besides being wordy, the clauses beginning What was in A and The thing that was in B cause inconsistencies in verb tense: the use of the new technology cannot logically be described by both the present perfect has been and the past was. 解釋說不可以用兩種不同時態修飾同一個主語

的說法媽?

感謝回答

时态（应该用过去完成时态）似乎还是有问题啊： have been constructed

如果改过了，应该可以。

另外，我理解的该句话的意思与你的不大相同：

去年被地震摧毀或破坏的建築物是违反该城市建设法规而建的。

What is/was … is/was … 主语从句中的be动词和宾语从句中的be动词应该s一致

这是固定用法。不必和sth that were ... had been一起总结。不是一个类型