北美二战娘子军

lenaqian

以下是引用祝英台在2008-4-15 4:46:00的发言：

瀑布汗...怎么没看出那里有解剖学，

俺一直是这样理解的：N有个发声音的部位很像猿猴的发声音的部位，并且N没有语言......

不过Lena你讲的N是复数在这里做单数讲，俺实在理解不了了.......ETS杀了我吧，郁闷死了....

第一，Ｎ是复数，没错。

第二，vocal tract是声带的意思。句子的意思是，所有的Ｎ都只有一条声带，跟ape一样。

这里强调的是整个物种的共同特征就是都只有一条声带。。。所以要用单数，a vocal tract

lenaqian

以下是引用祝英台在2008-4-15 9:59:00的发言：

OG251，

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction; its numbers are now five times greater than when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970's. .
A. extinction; its numbers are now five times greater than
B. extinction; its numbers are now five times more than
C. extinction, their numbers now fivefold what they were
D. extinction, now with fivefold the numbers they had
E. extinction, now with numbers five times greater than   答案是A

1，D，E关于with的修饰，OG说with 看起来是extinction。是不是可以这样理解：前面没逗号，修饰的是前面的名词。如果前面有逗号，修饰的是主语，如OG251

2，没太看明白OG的解释关于B，OG说用more 好像there are more numbers rather than more gyrfalcons.

A中用 its numbers are...great than...用greater,为什么啊？

１.　老外说用greater, bigger等修饰有形象的事物。。。比较桌子椅子比大小。

而抽象的数字概念等都用多少来修饰。。。所以number要用more来修饰。

2.　关于with的用法，非常非常tricky，也是逻辑理解的问题。with是紧密型的独立主格，所以跟主句有很强的逻辑的关系。主要是修饰主句一种状态。这个我估计要搞清楚比较烦。

比如ＯＧ上这句：

Visitors to the park have often looked into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

比如这句，后面的with是修饰monkeys sleeping on the braches的整个状态什么样子的，怎么睡的。

这个很难理解，用法上不固定，因为每个人对句子的理解不一样，但是，with不是一个很好的选择，因为其实它的使用限制很高的。（因为在使用时，不出主语，所以容易产生歧意。。。）

祝英台

以下是引用祝英台在2008-4-15 4:33:00的发言：

216. Many policy experts say that shifting a portion of health-benefit costs back to the workers helps to control the employer's costs, but also helps to limit medical spending by making patients more careful consumers.
  

(C) not only helps to control the employer's costs, but also helps
  

答案C

这里by making patients more careful consumers是什么意思啊

这个by怎么翻译阿，在这里

祝英台

200. Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place: one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.
    

(A)
   Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(B)
   If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(C)
   If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals.

(D)
   The finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals is suggestive of one reason, if used repeatedly in the same place, certain pesticides can become ineffective.

(E)
   The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place.

1，在D 中:The finding that... is suggestive of one reason, if used ...., certain pesticides...为什么 if 的逻辑主语也是one reason, 我认为也可能是finding, or certain pesticides.

MM你看A中if used OG说他是修饰certain pesticide，不管他是不是if certain pesticide are used 的省略但是修饰主句，

可是D中if used 为什么不是修饰主句了，变成了修饰reason了，OG的解释让人看得云里雾里的，而且看了多少遍OG总发现有不懂得，看不到的，想不到的。其阴险系数相当之高啊

这个MM是怎么理解的？

祝英台

以下是引用lenaqian在2008-4-15 14:07:00的发言：

１.　老外说用greater, bigger等修饰有形象的事物。。。比较桌子椅子比大小。

而抽象的数字概念等都用多少来修饰。。。所以number要用more来修饰。

2.　关于with的用法，非常非常tricky，也是逻辑理解的问题。with是紧密型的独立主格，所以跟主句有很强的逻辑的关系。主要是修饰主句一种状态。这个我估计要搞清楚比较烦。

比如ＯＧ上这句：

Visitors to the park have often looked into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

比如这句，后面的with是修饰monkeys sleeping on the braches的整个状态什么样子的，怎么睡的。

这个很难理解，用法上不固定，因为每个人对句子的理解不一样，但是，with不是一个很好的选择，因为其实它的使用限制很高的。（因为在使用时，不出主语，所以容易产生歧意。。。）

这个答案是A，是用greater来修饰，不是用more来修饰的。

with OG说看起来像修饰extinction的，那时不是就是说with应该是修饰主语的？

lenaqian

以下是引用祝英台在2008-4-15 22:07:00的发言：

这个答案是A，是用greater来修饰，不是用more来修饰的。

with OG说看起来像修饰extinction的，那时不是就是说with应该是修饰主语的？

不好意思，看来知识有薄弱点，number用greater记住了。

with即可以修饰主语，也可以修饰末尾词，但是一般修饰主句多一点。再说一次，这个不是很好的用法。ＭＭ看过就好了，用这个做破题点不太好。。。

lenaqian

以下是引用祝英台在2008-4-15 22:03:00的发言：

这个by怎么翻译阿，在这里

使病人成为更细心的消费者。

lenaqian

以下是引用祝英台在2008-4-15 22:04:00的发言：

200. Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place: one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.
    

(A)
   Certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place; one reason is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(B)
   If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason that certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals.

(C)
   If used repeatedly in the same place, one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective is suggested by the finding that much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes are found in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than those that are free of such chemicals.

(D)
   The finding that there are much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in soils that are free of such chemicals is suggestive of one reason, if used repeatedly in the same place, certain pesticides can become ineffective.

(E)
   The finding of much larger populations of pesticide-degrading microbes in soils with a relatively long history of pesticide use than in those that are free of such chemicals suggests one reason certain pesticides can become ineffective if used repeatedly in the same place.

1，在D 中:The finding that... is suggestive of one reason, if used ...., certain pesticides...为什么 if 的逻辑主语也是one reason, 我认为也可能是finding, or certain pesticides.

MM你看A中if used OG说他是修饰certain pesticide，不管他是不是if certain pesticide are used 的省略但是修饰主句，

可是D中if used 为什么不是修饰主句了，变成了修饰reason了，OG的解释让人看得云里雾里的，而且看了多少遍OG总发现有不懂得，看不到的，想不到的。其阴险系数相当之高啊

这个MM是怎么理解的？

if放在两句子中间，我觉得又可以跟前面，又可以跟后面。

祝英台

谢谢Lena 不厌其烦，熊抱一个，上花

祝英台

以下是引用lenaqian在2008-4-15 14:07:00的发言：

１.　老外说用greater, bigger等修饰有形象的事物。。。比较桌子椅子比大小。

而抽象的数字概念等都用多少来修饰。。。所以number要用more来修饰。

2.　关于with的用法，非常非常tricky，也是逻辑理解的问题。with是紧密型的独立主格，所以跟主句有很强的逻辑的关系。主要是修饰主句一种状态。这个我估计要搞清楚比较烦。

比如ＯＧ上这句：

Visitors to the park have often looked into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches, with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.

比如这句，后面的with是修饰monkeys sleeping on the braches的整个状态什么样子的，怎么睡的。

这个很难理解，用法上不固定，因为每个人对句子的理解不一样，但是，with不是一个很好的选择，因为其实它的使用限制很高的。（因为在使用时，不出主语，所以容易产生歧意。。。）

又有新的理解：with短语不好，通常不会是正确选项。

但是关于with的修饰，我觉得with从语法上讲还是就近修饰前边的名词的，如上边题的monkeys.

但是OG251，with语法上也是修饰extinction的，但是逻辑意思是修饰主语的，所以with在这里的修饰是错的。

MM怎么看？