再问og100中的ban

philikittist

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

og解释说，bans that ~~不合语法，cannot 在bans的后面不合逻辑。不合语法好理解，怎么不合逻辑呢，前面的讨论说造成了“双重否定”，可是这里bans后面的是同位语从句，解释bans的，何来双重否定？谢谢大家解惑~~

juan

逻辑上ban sth. can not be accepted:禁止sth不能被接受....那么到底是ban的结果是sth.能被接受还是不能被接受呢？而本意想说的是“sth.不能被接受的”. 体会一下,这里确实有illogical的意味在里面的.

wish helpful.

philikittist

谢谢mm!

不过这里ban不是动词是名词，后面的是同位语不是宾语。再看看哟~

dan

以下是引用philikittist在2004-7-13 14:36:00的发言：

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

og解释说，bans that ~~不合语法，cannot 在bans的后面不合逻辑。不合语法好理解，怎么不合逻辑呢，前面的讨论说造成了“双重否定”，可是这里bans后面的是同位语从句，解释bans的，何来双重否定？谢谢大家解惑~~

先给一个collins dictionary关于ban的定义：

2     A ban is an official ruling that something must not be done, shown, or used.
  The General also lifted a ban on political parties.
     N-COUNT: oft N on n  

ban后面的同位语中不能用cannot be done,应该为must not be done,两个在语气上不一样。所以ETS所不合逻辑。

philikittist

谢谢dan,gg说得很对，cannot确实语气不够重，怪我没问清楚，og上写的是 negative cannot illogical什么的，看来ets是对否定不满的。