A scrub jay can remember when it cached a particular piece of food in a particular place, researchers have discovered, and tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if stored long enough to have rotted. A. tend not to bother to recover a perishable treat if B. they tend not to bother recovering a perishable treat C. tending not to bother to recover a perishable treat it D. tends not to bother recovering a perishable treat E. tends not bothering to recover a perishable treat it
只问一个语法点：E选项的it，指代scrub jay没争议
我在想后面的这个结构可否理解为recover a perishable treat （that）it stored long enough to have rotted
还原之后就是it stored a perishable treat long enough to have rotted（不知道意思层面是否有转变呢？还是单纯的wody？另外to have done这里的用法怎么理解呢？）
国外instructor的理解和我很不相同，所以求点拨
mitch： The grammatical implication of IT stored long enough to have rotted is that stored long enough to have rotted --the entire structure -- refers to IT (the scrub jay). Here, storedseems to function as a VERB, the subject of which is IT. What did IT do? It STORED. HOW did it store? It stored LONG ENOUGH TO HAVE ROTTED.
首先，我觉得 it stored long enough没有问题，但是时态，你看整个句子就在讲个发生的客观事情而已，没有必要突然出来个过去时呀 to have done 这个用法 感觉好像总是在it is said/reported to have done 表示done 这个动作发生在据说/报道之前 而且你看a perishable treat （that)it stored long enough to have rotted 这个to have done 的动作发出者好像 变成 it ( a scrub jay) 不对吧，逻辑意思 意思感觉就这样别扭的
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2012-9-1 14:22:17
收藏
收藏
楼主
