Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging, the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.
Because an oversupplv of computer chips has sent prices plunging, the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.
(A) Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging,
(B) Because of plunging prices for computer chips, which is due to an oversupply,
(C) Because computer chip prices have been sent plunging, which resulted from an oversupply,
(D) Due to plunging computer chip prices from an oversupply,
(E) Due to an oversupply, with the result that computer chip prices have been sent plunging,
这个不懂在题目中的两个完成时,DUKB24大神在千行里说
关于时态的进一步讨论
出现在manhattan的一个例子:
Right: She WILL PAY you when you HAVE TAKEN out the garbage.
(the time of will pay is LATER than the future time of have taken)
如果是过去:
Once we had received your order, we would begin our production.
这句子没有意见吧?
如果是一般情况(general truth):
Once we have received your order, we begin our production.
如果是将来,照理说应该:
Once we will have received your order, we will begin our production.
但是语法上once后面不能有will,所以去掉will.(baby姐的例子)
我不太理解,感觉没有解决这个问题呢??求回复!!!
不好意思,表达能力有限,没有说清楚。
Because an oversupply of computer chips has sent prices plunging, the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.
这里出现了两个完成时,我的意思是为什么会有这种情况?我对这种诡异的说法不理解。
千行的解释:
对于这题的双现在完成时的解释(和baby姐讨论了下):
announce和send都在过去的特定时间点完成(其中send早于announce),有continued的effect,----will cut
我觉得如果有可能我就把划线部分的时态变成一般过去时,我觉得这样也没有问题,大神觉得呢?
Because an oversupplv of computer chips has sent prices plunging, the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.
Because an oversupplv of computer chips sent prices plunging, the manufacturer has announced that it will cut production by closing its factories for two days a month.
That tense ("has + VERBed") is used when the speaker/writer is looking at a past event from the present point of view. it's often used for past events that either (1) are ongoing into the present timeframe, or (2) are in the past, but have some sort of tangible effect on the present timeframe.
e.g., let's say someone played high-school football 20 years ago.
if this person was just talking to a random stranger in a bar (no direct connection to his football experience), he would just use the past tense: i played high-school football.
of the other hand, if this person was in an interview for a coaching position in high-school football, he would say i have played high-school football(, so i know the game.)
there is no difference in the timeframe of the event; the difference lies in how the event is viewed.
so, if the sentence is talking about the present effect of the price increases, "have gone" is better than "went".
you can't combine "has + VERBed" with a specific past time at which an event happened.
for instance:
i played high-school football --> sensible (if there is no direct impact on the present)
i have played high-school football --> sensible (if there is such an impact)
i played high-school football between 1992 and 1995 --> correct *i have played high-school football between 1992 and 1995 --> incorrect