你能把你碰到的类似问题说出来吗? 我想一前一后的区别主要出于表达上的需要(例如与后面句子的连接、搭配)和强调的重心不同。 好比说,如果是architects and stonemason,the maya......那么它后面就要说maya如何如何了。 如果是the maya,architects and stonemason,那就要说architects and stonemason如何如何了。 ANYWAY,architects and stonemason并不等于the maya。 不知对否?
56. Architects and stonemasons, huge palace and temple clusters were built by the Maya without benefit of the wheel or animal transport. (A) huge palace and temple clusters were built by the Maya without benefit of the wheel or animal transport (B) without the benefits of animal transport or the wheel, huge palace and temple clusters were built by the Maya (C) the Maya built huge palace and temple clusters without the benefit of animal transport or the wheel (D) there were built, without the benefit of the wheel or animal transport, huge palace and temple clusters by the Maya (E) were the Maya who, without the benefit of the wheel or animal transport, built huge palace and temple clusters A, B, and D illogically suggest that the palace and temple clusters were architects and stonemasons. For the modification to be logical. Architects and stonemasons must immediately precede the Maya, the noun phrase it is meant to modify. A, B, and D also use the passive verb form were built, which produces unnecessary awkwardness and wordiness. E is awkwardly phrased and produces a sentence fragment, because the appositive noun phrase Architects and stonemasons cannot serve as the subject of were the Maya. C, the best answer, places the Maya immediately after its modifier and uses the active verb form built.
the maya, architects and stonemason, built the **** architects and stonemason, the maya build the **** 我认为前一种类型只是同位说明the maya 的职业 后面一种除了同位说明外,还有一点点的突出、强掉的意思。 不过这种讨论和本文的解答是没有关系的。 不知道有没有说错,:)