2024-10-08 03:46 回答问题

这个用法没有问题，只是无论在美国还是在英国都用得不多，所以大家看到的基本都是不用for的用法。此用法英美两国都见得到，不过美国稍多些而已。我引Grammar of Spoken and Written English中的解释 Verb + for NP + to-clause In addition, some verbs of desire optionally take for + NP before a to-clause:I would like Sir Alec to carry on. (fict)                                         V. But I would like for you to do one thing if you would. (fict)Certainly, but I should hate you to forget that he has scored more runs in Test cricket than any other Englishman. (BrE news)V. I’d hate for all that stuff to go bad. (AmE conv)At the other extreme, Pattern 3 is rare, especially in BrE. However, it is slightly more common in AmE conversation, as in:I would just like for you to live without my income. (AmE conv)以上是2021版再看2016年一本书的解释 Examples like I want for you to be happy are on the border between standard and non- standard, at least in British English.<<A Critical Account of English Syntax>> 2016但是，在有些情况下，for却是不能省略的，比如：I would like very badly *?(for) Frances to buy the book. 因为中间有状语。    在特殊疑问句中有些情况下却又不能用 Who  would you like (*for)  to buy the book?    有些可以用 What  would you like (for) him to buy?   原因就是for不可以与特殊疑问词连用。以上两句一是who作主语不可以，一是what作宾语，可用可不用。另外，类似的还有want，但是用for的情况更为少见，但必用和不用的情况类同 ’d like. I want very much for you to go.  They had wanted all along for the performance to begin at six. ∗ It had been wanted all along for the performance to begin at six.   如果想了解的更详细些，可以参考剑桥语法中有关章节。

2024-09-20 17:07 回答问题

这个问题只能当做了解，最好不要当做规则。因为语法书没有类似的例子。但静心同学热衷探究，我就提供点相关的研究资料。根据Huddleston and Pullum (2002: 1220) themselves state that all -ing-clauses can take oblique subjects, but that traditional gerunds can take genitive subjects as well whereas traditional participles can also takenominative subjects.  (14) a. She resented his/him/*he being invited to open the debate.b. We appointed Max, he/him/*his being much the best qualified of the candidates.动名词的所有格形式的主语和真正的所有格形式还是有区别的a. I was amazed at Stacy‘s eagerness, and at Morgan‘s too.  b. *I was amazed at Stacy‘s being so eager, and at Morgan‘s too.涉及焦点时and possessives, unlike oblique subjects, cannot fall in the scope of focal adverbials within the gerund clause, as shown by (18). (18) the chance of him [/*his] in particular being hit by a meteorite remains constant (Google)关于主格形式作主语的，判断下面两例b. It was only to be expected, he being thirty-five years older than me(CB)    I say bring him on, he being in NY makes it just that much more fun. (Google)  研究文章的摘录，权当了解

2024-09-19 16:34 回答问题

楼主所示表语倒装现象，是一种常见类别，特点就是包含有某些带有比较意义的修饰词在内，这主要是和前文对比衔接，引起倒装，使得语义连接流畅，且重点分明。可以把含有比较级最高级的词组划为一类，如More important to many proliferation experts is the political braindrain of thousands of former Soviet nuclear scientists.//That is a hard lesson to grasp, but harder still is the fact that choking requires us to concern ourselves less with the performer and more with the situation in which the performance occurs.//This director is at last being re-evaluated and given his proper place in the history of the German film. Most charming was his tongue-in-cheek "Unheimliche Geschichten " (1920), five ghosts stories with a light touch. 当然也包括as，equally等引起的同级比较Just as important is the question of tolerance. 还有就是表达特别强调的一些副词如particularly，Particularly important was the discovery that many computer viruses have no known source.其实， 所有这些In essence, this structure is analogous to the comparative/superlative + adjective structure. Emphatic adverbials like particularly, in (85), function in the same way as a comparative or superlative morpheme。

2024-08-14 17:47 回答问题

相关问题好像我们以前私下谈论过，在外地，就简单把以前查阅的整理一下，供参考。第一点，不定式作条件状语是个古老现象，最初，带着to的不定式在古英语时期主要是表示目的，表示将来性，假设性，潜在性，后来，在to的目的作用减弱后，为了达到强调目的的作用，人们甚至又在前面加了个for，用for to来加强其目的含义。到了中古英语时期，to 不定式越来越多地被用来代替虚拟语气，所以，从历史上看，表示假设条件本就是其功能之一，不是现代产物，只是可能真实非真实条件交叉混用，有时不好区分了。这种条件假设我觉得一部分也可以理解为原因（你说的Swan老先生的观点），但不是整体性特征，其根本仍然是假设条件。to的意义的模糊性让语法家们也很为难，例如早期的Poutsma就曾写道：But in many adverbial and adnominal clauses the meaning of to is vague and weak, often to the extent of being hardly discernible. Thus in Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the spirit; I rejoice to see you; You' re in luck to come today; To hear him, you would think he had passed half his life in Australia; 关于The most likely origin of the to-infinitive is what I have called the purposive to-PP, to be distinguished from the spatial to-PP. Purposive to-PPs do not express a goal in space, but in time, i.e. a future, or at least non-actuated,  event.  The equivalence between to-infinitive and subjunctive clause means that the to-infinitive was reanalysed at some point as a non-finite subjunctive. This means that to has the same features to check as the subjunctive, and like the subjunctive it checks them in T. （w相关资料大家可参阅<<The Rise of the To-Infinitive>>）第二，我也引一些不定式表示条件的例子：Infinitive clauses of conditionThese infinitive clauses are not introduced by subordinators.211. a. You would be a fool not to apply for that job.b. To survive, we must have food.c. To hear her talk, you’d think she was a doctor.d. To see them together, you’d think they were husband and wife. (If we are to judge by what we have seen…)e. To get to the station, we’ll have to take a taxi.f. To get to the station, we had to take a taxi.<<Non-finite Clauses in English Formal Properties and Function>>第三，关于楼主所问二者的区别，我引国内秦裕祥老师的文章观点   不定式一般表示主观性意义 , -ing分词则主要表示客观性意义。 据此 , 含强烈主观性意义的目 的状语用不定式表示 , 含有明显客观性意义的时间状语、 方式状语、 伴随状语等则用 -ing分词表示。有些状语 , 如条件状语、 结果状语、 让步状语和原因状语等则主观性意义和客观性意义兼而有之。 一般说来 , 主观性意义较强时用不定式 , 客观性意义较强时用 - ing分词。 现分述它们的用法区别。1. 作条件状语时的区别不定式表示想象性条件 , 主要用于表示说话人的假设。 例如:To hear him talk, you would think he owned the whole world.A man would be blind not to see that.To judge by her reaction, she must have deeply resented your remarks.不定式表示的条件多为非真实条件 , 但有时也可见到不定式表示真实条件的情况。 如它用于表示说话人主观设定的条件或与目的意义相混杂的条件时即是如此:You do an honest man wrong to call him a liar or a thief.You have to be strong to lift a table like that.To make others comfortable, you have to appear comfortable yourself.-ing分词表示的条件多为真实条件 ,但它偶尔也可表示非真实条件 ,表明说话人对普遍事实的假设。 例如:Having to live on my knees , I would rather die .This same thing, happening in wartime, would amount to disaster.由上述情况得知 , 不定式与 -ing分词表示的条件意义有一定的差别 , 使用时不可随意交换。 试比较:To hear /? Hearing him talk, you would think him to be a celebrity.Turning /? To turn to the left , you will find the path leading to the site .Judging /?To judge by the look on his face, he doesn’t think much of our local wine.To put /? Putting it mildly, she’s just a bit inquisitive.比较显示 , -ing分词指泛指或业已发生的特定动作 , 不定式则指假定要发生或即将要发生的动作。 另有一点值得注意 ,表条件时 , -ing分词只有一般体形式 ,不定式则有一般体和完成体形式 , 一般体主要表示对说话时刻后的情况的假设 , 但在有些句型中 , 也可表示对说话时刻前的情况的假设 , 完成体则仅表示对说话时刻前的情况的假设。 试比较:a. I should be glad to go (= if I could go).b.I should have been glad to go (= if I could have gone) .a.He would be foolish to do it. (= if he should do it).b . He would have been foolish to do it (= if he had done it ) .a. To have come (= if you had come) to good terms with them, you would have done better.b. What would I give not to have heard (= if I had not heard) the calamities fallen on the heads of the King and Queen of France.

2024-07-20 05:58 回答问题

谢邀！粗略读了下原文，试答如下：第一个问题，主语宾语相关必具性状语，如何与可选性状语区分。                         这个问题提的有启示意义，按夸克的说法，(i) Except for the obligatory adverbial in the SV A and SVOA types , adverbials are optional:那么 记住这几种必具性状语的使用范围就可以了。A.主语相关的多指连系动词be，get，turn等后面的表语成分，在是介词短语或副词的时候，有时候也被称为状语。比如She was in a hurry. The chrysalis slowly turned into a butterfly.（obligatory predication adjuncts） B. 某些不及物动词必须跟介词短语或副词(表示地点，方向，时间）等一起才能表达完整的意义。常见动词如go, last, live,lie,extend, lead,stretch. 我们可以说The road goes (leads)to Beijing. 但不能说 The road goes（leads）.语义不完整，语法不正确。但对这种状语的称呼不必太过在意，各种语法书常有不同叫法，比如However, some intransitive verbs co-occur with a constituent that expresses location, direction,or time, and which is obligatory in the sentence structure. This constituent is called the Adverbial Complement  C.而在有些动词如put,place,bring, drive ,get ,lay, 等使役动词的宾语后面，介词短语或副词表示地点，方向，目标等意义时，这些状语不可缺少，夸克称之为宾语相关必具性状语。She placed the baby on a blanket in the living room. (fict†)                                                        //Put a note on my door. (conv) // [You could take it to the kitchen] [and put it under the grill of the electric cooker [in order to get it hot]], without knowing why it should be hot. (fict) 这种状语其实和宾语补足语类似，The adverbial in the SVO d A pattern most typically expresses location. Unlike adverbials in general, it cannot normally be moved or be dispensed with (without making the proposition incomplete). It differs from ordinary locative adverbials in that it does not specify the circumstances of the ‘placing’, ‘putting’, etc., but rather describes where the referent of the direct object ends up.上面引自<<Grammar of Spoken and Written English>>一书，直接宾语后的介词短语被称为obligatory adverbial 而宾语补足语被称为object predicative也有不少语法学者把它们看作宾语补足语，这样就避免了所谓的必具性状语和一般性状语的区分，而只需要记住哪些动词是复杂及物动词即可。如《Analysing Sentences An Introduction to English Syntax》2016第四版把宾语补足语也称为object-predicative 并同时举了几个例子：[48] Jack finds his own jokes extremely funny. (AP)[49] They made Stella their spokesperson. (NP)[50] Liza put the liquor under her bed. (PP)其实该书的作者早在夸克语法大全刚出版就提出了这种更为简便的分析方法，在《The Linguistic Structure of Modern English》 （2010）一书中P.209：The object complement characterizes the object in the same way as the subject complement characterizes the subject: it identifies, describes, or locates the object (as in We chose Bill as group leader, We consider him a fool, She laid the baby in the crib), expressing either its current state or resulting state (as in They found him in the kitchen vs. She made him angry). It is not possible to delete the object complement without either radically changing the meaning of the sentence (e.g. She called him an idiot => She called him) or making the sentence ungrammatical (e.g. He locked his keys in his office=>  *He locked his keys).同样也把表位置的介词短语看作了宾补。还有《 English: An Essential Grammar》2019，第三版，称宾补为 object complement，并给出了He put the milk in the fridge.这个例子，而在以前的版本并没有这种表示位置的例句。第二个问题，至于无动词分句，语法界并无统一定义，不必过于执着，像Aarts 更是喜欢用small clause这个概念，并且把无动词分句非限定分句都包括了进去，甚至宾补结构也被纳入。无动词分句原来被Kruisinga 1932,Zandvoort 1969称为free adjuncts without a verbal form, Poutsma 1904 称这些结构为nominal clauses, 当时All of these authors,however, discuss verbless clauses as possible realisations of adverbials, ... 1972年，夸克等人在《当代英语语法》对无动词分句其它不同功用的可能性进行了讨论，认为它们极其类似非限制性关系从句。后来《英语语法大全》里进行了细化陈述，但都强调无动词分句的状语作用，所以，它们不是句子结构的必具成分，这也能从She gave us our coffee black.看出，black可省略而不影响结构和基本语义。（ She is here.这是一个标准的限定句，同时就是夸克所说主语相关必具性状语。也就是第一个问题的A类，其实看作主语补语就一劳永逸了，和名词形容词作主语补足语即表语一样，这样也就没有是不是必具性状语这个问题了。）夸克他们没有对这些结构作为限制性关系后修饰语的情况进行讨论。1989年Pieter de Haan 在其著作《Postmodifying Clauses in the English Noun Phrases》提出restrictive relative postmodifiers的概念，“Verbless clauses can fulfill different functions. They may be used as modifiers. According to De Haan : verbless clauses…can not be looked upon as phrases, they are called verbless clauses not merely because they can be extended to finite relative clauses, but because of the fact that their constituent parts relate to each other in ways that can not be described in terms of phrasal constituents (modifier-head, etc.), but only in terms of clausal functions .”但是无动词分句后来范围无限扩大，感觉所有进步了细化了的东西，一下又被带回了混沌初态，同时附和的人好像也不多。夸克的语法一是比较早，二是可能也不认同此观点，比如当代英语用法/英语语法大全的著者Leech等1975年就定义了无动词分句，在2021再版的《Grammar of Spoken and Written English》中仍然认为As with supplementive clauses, their role is usually adverbial.至于对语法结构的理解和判断，第一要务是先充分理解掌握这些词汇各自的语义和特殊用法，不能照猫画虎，依此类推，这才真正的语言功底，二是语境，词汇和语法结构显示可能讲的是什么，而语境帮助确定具体语义。词汇/语法/语境/逻辑 综合判断，夸克语法中例句I found the letter in the kitchen. I typed the letter in the kitchen.语义判别就不说了，只说在是宾补的情况下能不能看作verbless clause，如I found him in the kitchen，首先，他们是句子的必要成分，宾语+补足语，它们的整体意义要和谓语动词一起理解才完整，分开成句语义经常无法衔接，二是，我们经常有加上to be 的情况，I found him to be in the kitchen.那就明显不符合无动词分句的定义了。第三，更何况，宾语补足语还有很多带有非限定动词的情况，这样，把一种不固定的个别现象单独视为verbless clause,也会引起分类的混乱，徒增负担。但是你非要说这是verbless clause也不乏同行者，大咖Bas Aarts就认为(16) Martin considers [Tim a creep]. (17) Phil deems [Henry foolish].The bracketed clauses have been called verbless clauses , but a more recent term, which we will adopt in this book, is small clause (SC) . Small clauses are clauses that lack an overt verb, but can be said to contain an implicit verb be . 《ENGLISH SYNTAX AND ARGUMENTATION》2024，所以不用那么纠结。第三，双宾动词改为介词引出间接宾语，SVOA 夸克语法基本是看作状语的，此种情况下的介词短语作状语是必具性的，但是他同时又介绍了We later (16.56.ff) consider an alternative analysis in which the to-phrases and the for-phrases illustrated above are described as prepositional objects, and are regarded as grammatically equivalent to indirect objects.这种也有语法家视为复杂及物动词的必具性状语，如whereas in John gave a bunch of roses to Jenny one might hypothesise a complex-transitive verb give in the clause pattern SVOA (as suggested by Stan-dop (2000)。这和剑桥语法的处理基本相同。第四，夸克所说的不定式不能用于被动语态我理解是指不定式不能做主语改写为被动语态，  I told/advised/persuaded Mark to see a doctor.[ I ]~ Mark was told/advised/persuaded to see a doctor. [2]Like [D3] verbs, [D6] verbs form only the first passive exemplified in [2] above: we do not find *To see a doctor was told Mark. The following verbs belong to this class:至于最后那条注释，不明白所指为何。啰嗦一大堆，希望能稍解疑惑。一家之言，仅供参考！

2024-06-20 16:02 回答问题

谢邀！这个问题我曾经回答过https://www.cpsenglish.com/question/58140，这里借机介绍一下其历史来源。方便大家理解。其实你已经把其区别鉴别了出来。大家经常讨论的He is to blame,The house is to let.等句子其实是英语历史的沉淀，是化石级现象(the only construction productively found with a to-infinitive in OE but not PE is the one in the PE fossil He is to blame. ... there is a connection between the rise of the ECM-construction and the loss of the he is to blame-construction.)。从历史上看，古英语时期被动式尚在发展初期，由于各种关系如词形，变位，语序等问题，应用很少，在被动义表达方面，主动式和被动式之间的区别不甚分明。比如古英语中的 be + past participle（过去分词） 可表达三种语法意义：完成体、 主动态和被动态 。 如 “I was finished”对应的句子可理解为： I have finished（reading the book） （我已经读完了 这本书） ， I finished （reading the book） （我读完了这本书）和 My life has been finished （我命休矣） 。从 历 史 上 看， 在 古 英 语 中， be + past participle 形式“独揽天下”， 不论主动义或被动义均采用这一表达。 但是，约从公元 13 世纪中叶开始， have-perfect（即 have + past participle）形式开始出现，该形式主要表达主动义，慢慢把be + past participle 所表达的主动义（如上举 I am finished） 承接过来， 使 be + past participle 的语法义缩小，只能分析为被动态。约从公元 15 世纪开始，have + been + perfect（即 have +been + past participle） 开始在中古英语中站稳脚跟，进入公元 1800 年， 进行被动 （即 be +being + past participle 形式） 已发展成熟  。这样主动被动界限分明，只是偶尔大家会遇到历史残留的纯表状态的be+过去分词情况。在这个古英语时期，除了以上可以表达被动语义的形式以外，还有就是be+to不定式，亦可表达主动及被动语义，除上面两个例子外，还可见ðas ðing sint to donne // those things are to do=those things are to be done‟ // heo is to clænsienne fram leahtrum-> she is to cleanse from sins=„she is to be cleansed from sins.但如今已不用的例子。至于其被动与主动的语义解释语法界也意见并不统一。    这个be to blame和 to be blamed的区别静心老师已经总结，我赘述一下：有观点认为I am to blame.是to不定式作表语，意思是I am at fault.意为我有过错，该受责备，语用上作定性说明，着眼我本身的问题。而I am to be blamed.是被动不定式与助动词be一起构成表将来情况的谓语。被动不定式表一个内含施动者语义的施动动作。句子相当于 I'm going to be blamed .语用上作定向说明。（这是易仲良老师的观点）下面我把以前回答问题整理的东东复制一下：这个to blame 被当做习语对待，意思是“引起某事的原因” 或“是某人的过错” ，逻辑上有被动含义，但其实这个习语强调的某人某事是过错方，可以把 to blame这个不定式 当做一个形容词看待，一般不表示将来。 如，1) who is to blame?--"I"m to blame. 怪谁？--怪我。2)They were in no way to blame. 这绝不能怪他们。3) Nobody is to blame for it.这事谁也不怨。4）Which driver was  to blame for the accident ? 哪位司机是此次事故的肇事者？5） A freak storm was  to blame for the power outrage.停电的原因是一场反常的风暴。        to be blamed 意思有所不同，表示某人要被问责，责备，强调事件性动作性。但并不一定表示那真是他的过错，比如  1) Yes， somebody is to be blamed for Boracay's  mess ,they need someone to blame.  2)  Defoe is scarcely to be blamed for using his new-found art upon gross themes.笛福用他新发现的艺术来描绘世俗题材，这不应该受到指责。3） You are to be blamed and punished.4) He is greatly to be blamed for his negligence.他粗心大意，应该受到严重指责。（某院报文认为张道真语法大全里“He is to blame（=to be blamed）.”中这个to be blamed 不符合习惯用法，是错误的。其实不然）。to be blamed 是有将来性含义的是有将来时含义的。但是be to be blamed 用法不常见，主要表示被指责谴责这种行为，be to 有点像安排规定准备一样的意思，常见的用法有should be blamed,ought to be blamed,will be blamed.（当时的资料没留出处，抱歉）这两个化石级例子到底可不可以用被动形式，我看到的是当然可以。除大家列举的例子外，最简单的比如对比性语境，强调动作事件含义时，He is to be blamed, not to be praised. 类似例子如The goods are to sell.对比语境下The flat is to be sold, not to be let.所以根据语义确定用法是基础。一家之言，仅供参考。

2024-05-27 23:26 回答问题

个人觉得from the river 应该理解为状语，如果看作定语那么from the river或of the river就属于限制性定语，表类别，water之前应该使用定冠词the，这样整句的意思就是 “你不要喝（来自于河流的）河水”而原句的意思是 “你不要（直接）从河里喝水”。更进一步的区别有可能是，前一句甚至表示即使是处理过的河水也不要喝，而后一句则对是否喝处理过的河水是开放的。一家之言，仅供参考。

2024-04-27 23:02 回答问题

这个句子我认为可以分析为动名词分句做主语和表语，理由如下：现在大家对动名词分句的认定一般分为三种形式1） Him stupidly missing the penalty lost us the game.2) His stupidly missing the penalty lost us the game.3) His stupid missing ofthe penalty lost us the game.第一个句子是宾格动名词形式，但是，在主语为名词的时候，英语分不出主宾格，所以就会出现这样的例子：Bill eating ice cream is not a pretty sight.在该句中，eating被认为是中心词。这在夸克语法也有说明If the -i,zg clause has a subject, the item realizing the subject may be in the genitive case or otherwise in the objective case (for pronouns having a distinctive objective case) or common case (for all other noun phrases).类似的例句我引用Aarts 文章：[The deliberate sinking of the ship]was a criminal act.[The navy deliberately sinking the ship] was a criminal act.第一个例句是 verbal nouns heading noun phrases，第二个例句是verbs heading clausal structures,大家传统上称ing词为动名词，但Aarts认为We follow many modern grammars which prefer to regard structures headed by “verbal gerunds” like those in (4–6) as nonfinite clauses (see e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 1063–64; Huddleston and Pullum et al. 2002: 80–83, Chap. 14; Aarts 2011: 221–31). 当然，蒋老师分析为分词定语是一种最常用的现象，但这里应该予以区分，比如下面例句：The young lady sitting next to you was wearing the T-shirt … [DI-B54 #64] (37) The traffic you are worried about is the traffic going towards London. [DL-B27 #40]  （these clauses function as modifiers within noun phrases. ）如何区分动名词还是分词，恐怕还是要从句法和语义着手，首先是看其语法功能，是名词位置还是形容词副词位置，其次，看ing句本身的语义问题。大家都知道，动名词没有明显的时间性，表示的往往是一种抽象的性质，和分词的时间性区别明显。在时和体上是中立的。其效果就是将分句事件提升为类型范围级别，并从具体的上下文（词汇语法上）推导出其作为事件标记的特性。一家之言，仅供参考

2024-04-07 13:51 回答问题

这个分析为省略了All 后的（that）做for的宾语可能更为合理些.

2024-02-11 14:42 回答问题

給管理员和各位老师朋友拜年了，来本站的两年让我增长了很多知识，结识了很多朋友，把三四十年前的强烈爱好-英语重新激发了出来，在试图帮助别人的同时，找到自己的快乐，尤其受益于向曹老师和Alex老师的请教，在此表达我衷心的感谢！同时谢谢海林同学的心意，我们都是来互学互助，开心进步是我们的出发点。最后，㊗️我们的网站越办越好，各位同仁龙年进步，兴旺，健康，快乐，一帆风顺！