以下是引用graceguo98在2009-7-10 0:05:00的发言:我也想知道为什么用would? 还有一个问题:答案D , an increase 是做同位语,that would amount 和 would represent 做increase 的并列定语, 1, 如果是并列的定语从句,那么为什么后面部分would represent ,没有that ,而不是an increase that would amount ..and that would represent 形式? 2, 如果是并列谓语,那么为什么第二个would 没有省略呢? 而不是an increase that would amount... and represnt...形式? 谢谢 找到一种解释,哪一位请翻译一下? 谢谢
there are two kinds of parallel signals: ONE-PART (such as "and", "or", "but"), and TWO-PART (such as "not only ... but also", "both ... and").
when you have PARALLELISM WITH A ONE-PART SIGNAL, the only words that are "locked in" are the ones directly FOLLOWING the signal. as long as you can find the corresponding structure in the other part, then the parallelism is fine. examples: i worked in nevada and florida. i worked in nevada and in florida.
BOTH OF THESE ARE FINE.
reasons: in the first, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is just florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just nevada. since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel: i worked in nevada and florida.
in the second, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is in florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just in nevada. since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel: i worked in nevada and in florida.
--
for completely analogous reasons, this sentence would be fine either with or without your second "that":
an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent...
an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and that would represent...
there are two kinds of parallel signals: ONE-PART (such as "and", "or", "but"), and TWO-PART (such as "not only ... but also", "both ... and").
when you have PARALLELISM WITH A ONE-PART SIGNAL, the only words that are "locked in" are the ones directly FOLLOWING the signal. as long as you can find the corresponding structure in the other part, then the parallelism is fine.
examples: i worked in nevada and florida. i worked in nevada and in florida.
BOTH OF THESE ARE FINE.
reasons: in the first, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is just florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just nevada. since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel: i worked in nevada and florida.
in the second, the part that's "locked in" by the signal and is in florida. therefore, the parallel construction would be just in nevada. since that construction is there, the sentence is parallel: i worked in nevada and in florida.
--
for completely analogous reasons, this sentence would be fine either with or without your second "that":
an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and would represent...
an increase that would amount to roughly five miles per gallon and that would represent...
|