比如:
Poor shipping experiences can lead to customer attrition, one reason that lead-time is so important in shipping.
One reason 是同位语没错吧?One reason 的先行词是不是就是前面的句子:Poor shipping experiences can lead to customer attrition 呢?
If the government had known what was going to happen, it would not have increased credit facilities — a move that accelerated inflation.
同样的,a move 是同位语没错吧?a move 的先行词是不是就是it would not have increased credit facilities 呢?
One reason 作前面句子的同位语,这个没问题。你的第二句,a move 同样也应该看作前面整个句子的同位语。你不能理解为仅是后半句的同位语,这就不符合逻辑了。前面整个句子是与过去事实相反的虚拟语气。言外之意,实际上政府增加了credit facilities, 是因为这种credit facilities的曾加才加速了通胀。你如果仅看后半句,那是否定意思,即不增加credit facilities, 那怎么会加快通胀呢?这就犹如:你昨天假如注意防寒,就不会发烧了,(结果发烧了)这是送你去医院的原因。你的理解犹如仅看后半句:把“送你去医院的理由” 看作“不会发烧”的同位语了,哪有这个逻辑。这犹如断章取义。所以,对语法的理解,要建立在语言逻辑和句子语义的基础之上才行。你不能仅从句子形式上机械的看待语法。
如果觉得我的回答对您有用,请随意打赏。你的支持将鼓励我继续创作!