- UID
- 1133261
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2015-7-15
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
A - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said that it is their fault
That something has happened can hardly be said that it is their fault.
something = educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology
The second that is problematic.
If we change the construction to - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be their fault, I don't see any grammatical lapses, the construction is inelegant and awkward. I would look for a better construction.
B - That educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said to be at fault
That something has happened can hardly be said to be at fault.
something = educators have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology
What does it even mean? Who is at fault? An event cannot be at fault.
C - It can hardly be said that it is the fault of educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology
who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology is just a modifier modifying educators. So the sentence in essence reads - It can hardly be said that it is the fault of a certain kind of educators.
certain kind - those educators who have not anticipated the impact of microcomputer technology
Now what is the fault of educators? it has no referent.
E - The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology can hardly be said.
Something can hardly be said - Okay
Something - The fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology
- Changes meaning. it is not a fact that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology. In fact this very thing is debatable.
D - It can hardly be said that educators are at fault for not anticipating the impact of microcomputer technology - Perfect. |
|