ChaseDream

标题: [求助]请教大全2 [打印本页]

作者: dreadpower 时间: 2003-11-24 21:02
标题: [求助]请教大全2
2.A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

答案是A,没问题.
问题是: B,C中the phosphate amount 和the amount of phosphates差异在那里呢??为什么the phosphate amount不好呢???

其次E中如果将for dumping改为to dump是否可以接受呢?? 就是说into the Great Lakes 优先修饰municipalities，但是是否可以理解为跳跃修饰???

作者: solome 时间: 2003-11-24 21:48
the phosphate amount 这种修饰是不清晰的，ETS一象是这样认为的，比如说the
population change就不行，the change in population是可以的

E就是该了也是修饰不清，而且是被动的表达，主动比较好

作者: dreadpower 时间: 2003-11-24 22:15
谢谢solome的解答, 你能将the phosphate amount 这种修饰是不清晰归类??

归结为一种错误, 应该是什么呢??

作者: solome 时间: 2003-11-25 09:52
不知道是不是应该叫做名词词组的中心词问题，anyway,我不清楚应该叫成什么错误呢：）

作者: dreadpower 时间: 2003-11-25 19:32
我昨天晚上回去琢磨了,可能是这样,不知道对不对:

   要表示A的B的时候，不能直接用名词A+名词B表达，应该是 B 介词 A

   就是说英语表示“的”，不能名词连用

   比如这里：the phosphate amount 意思上是说磷的量，就该表达为the amount of phosphates

      再比如the population change就不行，应该是the change in population

   SOLOME还能找到类似的例子吗？？能否验证一下我的解释对不对？？

作者: g4yLee 时间: 2003-11-25 19:51
这些都是习惯用法啊,为什么要去钻这些呢.英语里名词修饰名词是不多,但不是绝对没有(下次我找给你看,现在想不起来,呵).gmat里一般是避免名词修饰名词的,特别是老长老长的东西.the phosphate amount ,the population change,你觉得看的顺眼吗?对the population change有疑问还可以理解,为什么对the amount of...也要怀疑呢.这个句子请注意后面从句是修饰什么,bc等于是修饰amount了.

作者: dreadpower 时间: 2003-11-25 20:33
极度感谢g4yLee，很有道理

其实我也有疑虑，名词修饰名词多的就是，所以想求证，到底在什么情

况下名词修饰名词可行，什么时候不可行？？SOLOME能解答吗？？YZYINYIN怎么看？？

作者: Sophiallw 时间: 2005-12-15 16:27

根据 jnlvo版版的最新大全注释,此题选D,

A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump

(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping

(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump

(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities

OG-11^th的答案是D

An agreement that occurred in 1972 is correctly described with the past tens verb reduced.Since the dumping continues into the present, the past perfect verb had been allowed should instead be the present are allowed.

A Had been allowed should be are allowed.

B The phosphbates amount should be the amount of phosphates;the meaning of the sentence is changed by the omission of any form of allow.

C The present tense reduces should be the past tense reduced;the phosphate amount should be the amount of phosphates;have been allowed should be are allowed

D Correct.The past tense reduced is correctly used in this sentence to describe a past action,and the present tense are allowed is used to describle the present situation.

E The present tense reduces should be the past tense redueced;allowed for dumping is an incorrect idiom;allowed for dumping by municipalities is awkward

[此贴子已经被作者于2005-12-15 16:36:48编辑过]

作者: Sophiallw 时间: 2005-12-15 17:13

但是上面这一说我反倒就不明白了

一个1972年的agreement缩减了municipalities had been allowed to dump的 amount of phosphates.这个agreement是一个发生在过去的事情,那么这个被政府允许dump的phosphates就应是一个发生在agreement之前并持续到agreement出台的事情,理应是过去的过去,所以用过去完成时.

但是现在这个新的解释是说Since the dumping continues into the present, the past perfect verb had been allowed should instead be the present are allowed.为什么说这个dumping是一个持续到现在的动作呢?

请NN解答!!!

作者: Sophiallw 时间: 2005-12-15 17:20

以下是引用hitler999在2005-7-14 13:09:00的发言：

XDF老师的意思是：只要是政府法令，哪怕是1279年的，也要用现在时，这条规律是用现在时的三条规律之一，还有两条是：客观事实（比如地球绕太阳转）；科研成果或统计资料。

这种规律正确吗？谢谢

是因为上面这个道理吗?

以下是引用andrew_li在2005-7-15 23:46:00的发言：

The sentence is talking about the effect of the agreement but not its content.

那么究竟作何解释?

作者: Sophiallw 时间: 2005-12-15 18:29

以下是引用newbee在2003-9-21 17:46:00的发言：
Sec 14-19
19.A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.
(A) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump
(B) reduced the phosphate amount that municipalities had been dumping
(C) reduces the phosphate amount municipalities have been allowed to dump
(D) reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities are allowed to dump
(E) reduces the amount of phosphates allowed for dumping by municipalities
答案是A。
请问，如果是当时市政当局允许把Phosphates倾倒进五大湖，但是1972年的agreement（不是禁止倾倒的协议，而只是限制倾倒的协议）只是减少了amount，而不是禁止了dump，那么allow的时态应该是什么样的呢？

以下是引用5332649在2004-1-8 19:02:00的发言：
请问 an amount of 不是要加不可数名词吗？这里怎接
phosphates

以下是引用turtlechen在2004-1-8 20:24:00的发言：
No! an amount of can modify countable or uncountable nouns.
Ex: 大全511
The amount of paper that will be recycled this year is expected to be greater than ever

Below phrases are for uncountable nouns

Colins English Grammar 2.200)

less of ("less of" can replace "fewer of" in modern usage)
little of
much of
part of
a bit of
a good deal of
a great deal of
the whole of

以下是引用turtlechen在2004-1-9 13:26:00的发言：
Most of the time, we see "amout of + Uncountable Noun".
But it does not mean it can't follow countable noun.
I think you may try to search on gemj's great work, reading 2772.
There are few examples.

Normally,
you use "an anount of" with plural verb
" the amount of" with singular verb

作者: adelineyao 时间: 2005-12-16 02:42

A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

In this sentence, that clause modifies "phosphates" not " amount" therefore present tense should be used. i.e. municipalities are allowed to dump phosphates into the Great Lake, but the 1972 agreement changed the amount allowed.

作者: snowfield 时间: 2006-7-1 16:01

以下是引用adelineyao在2005-12-16 2:42:00的发言：

A 1972 agreement between Canada and the United States reduced the amount of phosphates that municipalities had been allowed to dump into the Great Lakes.

综合各位nn的观点，是对本题总结如下：

上述划线部分的解释有道理，因为从意思上来讲，被允许倾倒的应该是phosphates而不是数量（amount)，而phosphates一直允许倾倒，所以用一般现在时是可以的。这里引起大家争议的就是that从句该修饰谁得的问题，因为按照一般原则后置的修饰成分应该修饰先行结构中的中心词，按此原则本题中that从句似乎应该修饰amount，这也是引起大家争议的根源。根据逻辑意思高于语法规则的原则，从句中用现在时态更合适。

关于主句时态本人倾向于用一般现在时，因为这里是对协议内容的描述，但按此理解最佳选项C存在that从句修饰amount的问题，amount不能被dump，这是个比较严重的问题。

另有大虾解释说这里可以是对协议结果的描述，因此可以用过去时态，这也有道理。与此对应的选项e也不存在that从句修饰amount的问题。

综上d最佳答案

欢迎拍砖。。。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-7 3:13:03编辑过]

作者: sliton 时间: 2008-8-16 15:36
OG11 这样写的，写得很好
Since the dumping continues into the present, the past perfect verb "had been allowed "should instead be the present " are allowed"

这是延续到现在的动作，所以用一般现在时

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)