OG 100 Wisconsin, Illinois, Florida, and Minnesota have begun to enforce statewide bans prohibiting landfills to accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings. (A) prohibiting landfills to accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings (B) prohibiting that landfills accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings (C) prohibiting landfills from accepting leaves, brush, and grass clippings (D) that leaves, brush, and grass clippings cannot be accepted in landfills (E) that landfills cannot accept leaves, brush, and grass clippings Choice C is the best answer. Either of the following constructions would be idiomatic here: x forbids y to do z or x prohibits y from doing z. Choices A and B violate idiom; \ D and E introduce constructions that, in context, are faulty. First of all, both bans that x cannot be done and bans that y cannot do x are unidiomatic formulations. Secondly, the negative cannot after bans is illogical.
答案我知道是C,但是看到OG对答案的解释时说: “ D and E introduce constructions that, in context, are faulty. First of all, 'both bans that x cannot be done' and 'bans that y cannot do x' are unidiomatic formulations. ”究竟要怎么表达这个同位语从句才能够idiomatic呢?
“Secondly, the negative ‘cannot' after 'bans' is illogical.”为什么bans后面的从句中不能有cannot呢?还是ban后的同位语从句要用possitive而不能用negative? 请教......
about the 3th mention : 有道理,如果把cannot 改为can或是就不用情态动词, 是不是作为同位语从句,E选项也可以算做正确了?............ 这样的句子 似乎显得啰唆..应该也不会是好答案
what cocoabean said is so great !
in fact , people know that American is a "lazy " one. it's too troubled for them to express a meaning with 2 words which have the same concept . it's why the OG could ONLY use "unidiomatic formulations " to explain it ^ ^ Right ?
by the way ...i have a Q.....if what i though above is bullshit is it possible to substitute "must no"t for "can not" ?? it seems to have a little bit different in English