[HELP & for reference]Questions in Manhattan(edit 5) - CSTupdate 9/7

lxskyfly

摇曳的叶子 发表于 2013-9-7 13:05
IMO, MANHATTAN actually takes "who" and "whose" as an exceptional example.
considering the followi ...

Thank you sooo much, but IMO,
why we can't express like this:

There are many people who speak English but that do not speak Spanish.

because "that" can't modify people. do you agree about this?
then can i make interpretation the rule as following:
"where" and "that" can't modify the same noun, because "where" serves as adv, whereas "that" serves as noun, they are not parallel?

still confused abt whether we can use the different subordinator to modify the same antecedent. especially when MANHATTAN says subordinators are no need to be identical.
Sorry for bothering, thank you soooo much!!

lxskyfly

辟地开天为教主 发表于 2013-9-7 12:48
for reference to others, you may search within, if you hold that question as well.

请问楼主这句话 ...

By this i mean: if you have the same quesions as i have when reviewing MANHATTAN, you can search in this post and find if there are any answers for your question.
Sorry i didn't focus on grammar then. so have i made you clear?

辟地开天为教主

lxskyfly 发表于 2013-9-7 14:23
By this i mean: if you have the same quesions as i have when reviewing MANHATTAN, you can search i ...

yes,

but about "have i made you clear"  You can say 'Is that clear?' or 'Do I make myself clear?.
" have I made you clear" is very confusing

lxskyfly

辟地开天为教主 发表于 2013-9-7 15:42
yes,

but about "have i made you clear"  You can say 'Is that clear?' or 'Do I make myself clear?. ...

haha~thank you!!! ;)

enkyklios

楼主问的这个问题在语法里也算是一个比较偏的问题。

then can i make interpretation the rule as following:


"where" and "that" can't modify the same noun, because "where" serves as adv, whereas "that" serves as noun, they are not parallel?
这个恐怕不能算是原因，因为我见过when和which 连用  He told me the date when he joined the League, which he would never forget.
但是这句话有的语法上说是which修饰date.有的说是date when……。所以看楼主地喜好。

still confused abt whether we can use the different subordinator to modify the same antecedent. especially when MANHATTAN says subordinators are no need to be identical.
Sorry for bothering, thank you soooo much!!
这里我觉得曼哈顿到是没有说错，确实不用一样。who和whose ，who 和that ，when 和which……很多都可以同时使用

一孔之见，仅供参考

lxskyfly

enkyklios 发表于 2013-9-7 18:07
楼主问的这个问题在语法里也算是一个比较偏的问题。

then can i make interpretation the rule as followi ...

Thank you!!! so maybe we can just take MANHATTAN rule and keep critical~~~~

lxskyfly

求大牛指点曼哈顿啊~~~

lxskyfly

enkyklios 发表于 2013-9-7 18:07
楼主问的这个问题在语法里也算是一个比较偏的问题。

then can i make interpretation the rule as followi ...

前辈！又发现相关的一个问题。
在MANHATTAN Chapter 11 Extra里面出现这么一句话：

Chapter 11：Only clauses starting with the same word should be made parallel.(page220)

是不是跟它前面parallelism里面讲到的

  subordinator no need to be identical（引导词不必一致）

矛盾呢？有种飘飘坠落的感觉！
Thank you sooo much for help dear!

enkyklios

lxskyfly 发表于 2013-9-8 17:45
前辈！又发现相关的一个问题。
在MANHATTAN Chapter 11 Extra里面出现这么一句话：

前辈从何说起啊
但只是你说的这个这个我觉得不矛盾，因为parallel和 identical是完全不同的，
平行是一个很宽的概念，你永远也讲不清楚什么叫平行，只是有时候你可能会说这个不平行。
所以不用管平行的问题，记得前一个就可以了
In recent years cattle breeders have increasingly used crossbreeding, in part that their steers should acquire certain characteristics and partly because crossbreeding is said to provide hybrid vigor.
A) in part thattheir steers should acquire certain characteristics

(B) in part for theacquisition of certain characteristics in their steers

(C) partly because oftheir steers acquiring certain characteristics

(D) partly becausecertain characteristics should be acquired by their steers

(E) partly to acquirecertain characteristics in their steers

你说这道题算是平行呢？还是不平行呢？

North Korea has told foreign embassies in Pyongyang it cannot guarantee their safety in the event of conflict,and to consider evacuating their employees
这个句子and又是和谁平行呢？
如果不平行？一个正确的句子可以不平行吗？如果平行这算那门子平行？
所以我从来不喜欢讨论平行的问题
尽管不喜欢但是我说一点我对平行的理解，平行应该是在功能上的平行而不应该是在结构上的平行。

lxskyfly

enkyklios 发表于 2013-9-8 17:57
前辈从何说起啊
但只是你说的这个这个我觉得不矛盾，因为parallel和 identical是完全不同的，
平行 ...

因为我对大神大牛等词汇已经X%#*&了，于是称个前辈，又亲切又尊敬，哈哈~
谢谢！觉得最后一句话很有道理，我想rule本来就是no rule啦，总是要keep critical的！这是GMAT教的。谢谢~~~