ChaseDream
搜索
123下一页
返回列表 发新帖
00:00:00

During her presidency of the short-lived Woman's State Temperance Society (1852-1853), Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as she was a staunch advocate of liberalized divorce laws, scandalized many of her most ardent supporters in her suggestion that drunkenness should be made sufficient cause for divorce.

正确答案: D

更多相关帖子

524

帖子

15

好友

4712

积分

ChaseDream

注册时间
2003-03-17
精华
8
解析
查看: 17646|回复: 27
打印 上一主题 下一主题

gwd1-1

[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2004-10-12 10:08:00 | 只看该作者

gwd1-1

1。During her presidency of the short-lived Woman’s State Temperance Society (1852-1853), Elizabeth Cady Stanton, as she was a staunch advocate of liberalized divorce laws, scandalized many of her most ardent supporters in her suggestion that drunkenness should be made sufficient cause for divorce.




  • as she was a staunch advocate of liberalized divorce laws, scandalized many of her most ardent supporters in her suggestion that drunkenness should be

  • as she was a staunch advocate for liberalized divorce laws, scandalized many of her most ardent supporters by her suggestion of drunkenness being

  • in being a staunch advocate for liberalized divorce laws, had scandalized many of her most ardent supporters with the suggestion of drunkenness being

  • a staunch advocate of liberalized divorce laws, scandalized many of her most ardent supporters by suggesting that drunkenness be

  • a staunch advocate of liberalized divorce laws, she scandalized many of her most ardent supporters in suggesting that drunkenness should be

  • the answer is d, that is ok, no problem


    这里想到一个问题,


    a staunch advocate of liberalized divorce laws, scandalized many of her most ardent supporters by suggesting that drunkenness be


    这里可不可以改成 as a staunch advocate呢,也就是说变成Elizabeth Cady Stanton as a staunch advocate of liberalized divorce laws 这样改可不可以呢,和答案中的形式有何区别呢?请指教

    沙发
    发表于 2004-10-12 10:58:00 | 只看该作者

    好像不可以,但不知道为什么不可以,所以,同问.....

    板凳
    发表于 2004-10-12 15:52:00 | 只看该作者

    语法上是没有错的,都成立。

    不过逻辑上有问题,两者的区别是限定性修饰和非限定性修饰,请参考OG141关于两者在逻辑意义上的区别。

    地板
    发表于 2005-5-13 23:27:00 | 只看该作者
    顶上来,as也存在限定和非限定修饰??
    5#
    发表于 2005-5-16 22:31:00 | 只看该作者
    UP
    6#
    发表于 2005-9-2 15:22:00 | 只看该作者
    as翻译成“作为”,放在这里句意不通。
    7#
    发表于 2005-9-30 14:58:00 | 只看该作者

    i have another question..


    C) "with the suggestion of drunkenness being"


    我覺得with好像有點扭曲了意思 但又說不出原因 請大家指點


    how does "with.." distort the meaning here.. thanks

    8#
    发表于 2005-11-10 11:49:00 | 只看该作者
    with短语跟在many of her most ardent supporters 后面会引起修饰上的不确定,可能会被认为是修饰这些支持者的,即suggestion的内容是支持者们提出的;而句子原意是Elizabeth Cady Stanton提出的suggestion
    9#
    发表于 2006-3-8 04:44:00 | 只看该作者
    全是满天星级别的在讨论呀~~~不敢说话了。。。
    10#
    发表于 2006-4-18 13:08:00 | 只看该作者
    以下是引用LES在2004-10-12 15:52:00的发言:

    语法上是没有错的,都成立。


    不过逻辑上有问题,两者的区别是限定性修饰和非限定性修饰,请参考OG141关于两者在逻辑意义上的区别。



    up


    您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

    Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

    IESE MBA
    近期活动

    正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

    手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-11-9 13:52
    京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

    ChaseDream 论坛

    © 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

    返回顶部