4天前 回答问题
1. 首先要说的是,韦氏词典的解释(Both lit and lighted are acceptable and standard, and have been all along. The evidence in the Merriam-Webster files shows both forms to be used about equally)并非专指这两个词作定语时的用法,而是泛指lighted和lit作为过去式和过去分词的用法。因为在传统英语语法、词典和惯用法中,不少学者提到一些用法差异和限制。lighted和lit这两个动词形式可以追溯到old English时代。当时,动词light的两个基本意思是“点亮,点燃”和“下马,下车”。它们最初的过去式形式(含过去分词)都是规则变化的lighted。但在16世纪现代英语初期和17/18世纪,上述两个意思的light的过去式和过去分词lighted分别受到了lit的挑战。在现代英语中,lit这一形式在不同地区和不同程度上已经超越了lighted。在美国英语中,两者的使用比例为2:1;而在英国英语中则达到10:1,以至于一些语法书认为,light的过去式和过去分词都须用lit, 不用lighted。如果用了lighted就算错。 举个例子,Turton的LDCE有以下内容: (☓)It was dark inside so I lighted a match.(√)It was dark inside so I lit a match.(☓)Suddenly a wonderful smile lighted up her face.(√)Suddenly a wonderful smile lit up her face.(☓)The road was poorly lighted and it was difficult to see.(√)The road was poorly lit and it was difficult to see. 毫无疑问,Turton的这一颇为极端的观点连英国语法学者都并不都认同。更多的学者认为,即使在英国,lighted和lit用法也是相同的,无论作为过去式还是过去分词。 韦氏惯用法词典主要是针对这类过于夸张的说法亮出自己的观点和依据。然后它接着说:有些语法书认为lighted可能更常用作形容词。但即使如此,我们也能找到a lit cigar和a lit window这样靠谱可信的用例。这实际上已经暗示传统语法对lit用作前置定语的质疑。 当然,韦氏惯用法词典认为lit和lighted两个形式长期并存,且类似a lit cigar这样的用法完全正当。但它既没有也不可能否认传统语法中有人(别的语法学者)认为不宜把lit用作前置定语。2. 英语语法和惯用法中存在各种不同的意见和观点十分普遍。lit (通常)不用作前置定语的说法由来已久。而且不仅仅限于早期的传统语法,也存在于近五十年出版的语法和惯用法中。例如:2.1 Practical English Usage (1st edition, 1980) 该书在谈到形容词的位置(与句法功能相关)时指出:Two other words that are generally used only in predicative position are content and lit (e g I’m feeling quite content; The candle is lit). On the other hand, contented and lighted can both be used in any position in a sentence. (注:该书第2版开始删除这一说法)2.2 A Handbook of English Grammar (1957)该书在谈论分词形式形容词用法的区别时指出:Discriminate between attributive and predicative forms in the following cases: A drunken man --- The man is drunk A lighted candle --- The candle was lighted (or: lit) 作者在列出不规则动词的过去式和过去分词时,列出了lighted和lit两种形式。但特别脚注:As an attributive adjective lightedis used. 该书1975年第7版仍保留上述说法。2.3. LASD(Longman 1983)light词条Usage: Use lit as the past participle of light ,except when it stands as an adjective before the noun: He’s lit a matchThe match is lit. a lighted match.2.4 DCU (Harper 1975)lighted/lit lighted and lit are completely synonymous and in equally good use both as the past tense and past participle of the verb “to light”. Lighted is propably more common as the adjective and past participle.... However, lit appears to be a trifle more common as the past tense.2.5 Collins Cobild English Usage (1992)在讲到动词light的两个词义(点燃,照亮)时指出:For both meanings of “light”, you use “lighted”, not “lit”, in front of a noun. Mitchell took the lighted cigarette from his lips. I noticed a lighted window across the street.However, after an adverb you use lit. ...a freshly lit cigarette. ...the dimly lit department store CCEG最新版(2004)仍然延续以上说法。2.6 MEU (Fowler 1965)When used attributively or as adj. the customary (惯用的)form is lighted(a lighted cigarette), except when it is qualified by an adv. (a well-lit room, a badly lit celler)类似这样的叙述还有不少,但相关资料多为纸质书,我打字慢,输入比较麻烦,就不再多说了。 当然,我只是引述了英美语法惯用法中一些认为通常不用lit做前置定语的例证,但这并不代表我个人的看法。我的意见是:在各类时态中,过去式和过去分词多用lit,少用lighted;作定语时多用lighted,少用lit。也许这样比较安全,虽然用哪个都不算错。
2024-11-22 16:32 回答问题
不是the place...之前省略了when。the moment (或 the moment that)本身是引导时间状语的连词,意思接近as soon as或immediately。
2024-11-22 16:16 回答问题
前一句的used to (连用)是情态助动词;后一句的used是形容词。
2024-10-31 20:20 回答问题
章振邦认为单个副词做方式状语不能被It-分裂句强调。其依据是Quirk的A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language。 该书8.83节指出:由单个副词表示的方式状语通常不能成为肯定式It-cleft sentence的中心(Normally, when manner adjuncts are realized by adverbs, they cannot be the focus of a cleft sentence (cf 8.25), but their acceptability is increased if they are modified or if the focal clause is interrogative or negative)。章振邦《新编高级英语语法》没有提到的是:在疑问句和否定句中,副词方式状语被强调是有一定可接受性的。 Quirk同时补充说明,如果是表示手段、工具的方式状语,是可以成为分裂句的中心的,例如: It was surgically that he treated the patient. 当然,Quirk的上述意见可能会与其它一些语法专家的论述或用法不太一致。对此我们可以持开放态度。但我个人倾向于信任Quirk等人的意见,这个强大的团队对这一问题针对性很强的专门论述不会没有道理。 另外,Quirk的叙述中用到Normally一词也给自己的观点留有一定余地。那么什么情况下会是例外呢?我的猜想是:既然有修饰语的方式副词可以被强调,那么单个副词可能是因为比较轻,才不宜成为强调焦点。如果多个方式副词合成一个集,或许是可以被强调的。Huddleston的The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language在提及同一问题时用到下面这个结构有点特别的例句: She learns sex is something sordid, [and when she experiences it for the first time herself it is incoherently, clumsily, but half shyly and half inquisitively]在粗体字显示的这个集合体中,单词副词incoherently和clumsily得以被强调。这种罕见的情况可能是比较自然的。 个人意见,仅供参考。
2024-10-31 20:14 回答问题
刚看到alex119网友已做了很好的回答,我认为简明扼要,应予以采纳。 我是才看到邀答私信,正好之前收集过这一问题的资料,然后就改写了一下。既然写了,就发一下吧。 句① lf he be found guilty, he would be sent to prison.本句中从句的be是虚拟语气现在时,从句的would表明作者认为可能性很小。整句为非真实条件句。但分句和主句动词形式的这种搭配很少见,是一种古旧用法,传统英语语法(尤其是国内英语语法学者)对此时有提及。例如:If his advice be good, it would be accepted. (张道真《英语语法大全》)但现代英语语法对此已少有着墨。当然,从句动词采用be-型虚拟式并不意味着全句必然是非真实条件句中。因为跟should do/be一样,be-型虚拟式(实际上可简单视为should be/do)既可以是真实条件句的标记,也可以是非真实条件句的标记。如果主句用shall, will,一般现在时,或者是祈使句等,全句就是真实条件句。比较而言,后一种用法(真实条件句)更常见。例如:If a sever serve a fault twice, he shall lose a point. (新编高级英语语法) If it be asked what the subjunctive in the above instances expresses, the answer is threefold.(HEG)If it be inappropriate to have said this, I humbly apologize. (Royal English Grammar)If she be here, then tell her I wait her pleasure. (PEU)句② lf he should come tomorrow, l would tell him everything.由主句的would可知,本句为非真实条件句。从句的should为推定式用法,具有试探性、不确定性,比用一般过去时came更委婉圆通,也更正式。这类用法很常见。例如:If John should come, Mary would leave. (MEM)也可将should前置,构成部分倒装语序。例如: Should John come, Mary would leave. 句③ I'm writing to confirm the arrangements for my trip to China. I should be leaving New York Airport at 8 p.m. on July 18. 句中should be leaving用于对将来事件的推测(预见),表示较高程度的可能性,即非承诺必然性(noncommitted necessity)。其确定性介于may和will之间。Leech认为其概率相当于probability。例如: You should be meeting those later on this afternoon. (MEM)当然,正如静心网友指出的那样,will/shall be doing也可用于对将来事件的推测。例如: She will be arriving tomorrow. (CGE) 一般来说should be leaving和will be doing基本语义相当,但后者可能性更大一些。
2024-09-08 19:40 回答问题
1. 一般通用语法或基础语法教程都会指出:who/what用于无明确范围的选择;which用于有明确范围的选择。这基本上没有问题,因为这样的语法条文同时也符合我们日常所见。2. 但如果再深化对上述语法问题的探讨,就会发现毫无保留地遵从前述语法条文就会呈现出自身的弊端。因为在一群(或一批)确定的人(或物)做出选择时,用who和what的用例并不罕见。以下例句均源于英语语法学家的著述和现代英语主流媒体: (01) But perhaps it is premature to talk of failure. Fail the play does when read:but who of its judges have seen it acted? Not I at any rate; and I suspect that it acts far better than it reads. (Zandvoort) (02)Ask all Florence who of those five men has the truest heart. (Jeorge Eliot, Romola III) (03)Who of us would be prepared to approve such a course? (Dr. Wood) (04)Who won the battle, the English or the Scots? (English Through Questions and Answers-by Palmer) (05)The help they get from Onna White's routine choreography is tangential: who of us dances out work life any way, except dancers? (TIME- Blue-Collared) (06)A rabbi pronouncing a eulogy reaches his apogee with the solemn question, " And who of us does not love show business? " (TIME)这样的例句是很多的。 3. 当然,我们说who和what用于有明确范围的用法并不罕见仅就该用法本身而言。如果将其与同一情形中which的使用相比,前者当然还是非常少见的。但这不是重点,重要的是了解who和what在有明确范围时使用的内在逻辑。4.根据Zandvoort,Erades和Wood等语法学者的分析,在明确范围使用which,其重点在于“挑选(select而非choose)”。这意味着在挑选一部分对象的同时摒弃或排除另一部分;如果用who/what, 则意味着确认,暗示其选择对象可在该范围之内,但并不具排斥意义,甚至可在提供的范围之外。其重点在于明确化,确认所选的对象。试比较what和which在有明确范围时的使用: (07) Which will you have, tea or coffee? (08) What will you have to drink, Tea? Coffee? Cocca? Lemonade?句(07)有二选一的含义:喝茶就给你端茶,喝咖啡就给你端咖啡,只能二选一;句(08)在做出选择时不具排除意味,而且暗示可以提供的选择并非局限于上述四种。又例如: (09)Which will you have, rice or noodles? (10)What will you have, beef or mutton?句(09)用which显然是排除性挑选;句(10)用what意味着两样都有,如果愿意,可以两样都吃。who和which的关系同样如此。例如: (11) -- Doting mother: “And whom do you love best, Daddy or Mummy? -- Johnney: Daddy.这位母亲之所以避免用which,是因为用了它可能导致迫使孩子面临一种为难的选择:因为选了一方等于是明显排除另一方。前文句(01)的用法也如此:who of its judges重点关注的是哪位评论者,目的是确认、明确化,并不存在“择一而排它”的问题。又例如,当一个领队为队员预订各种饮料的份数时,他会问:(12)Which of you would like tea and which coffee? 因为领队要求这个团队中的每个个体(Which of you)对饮料的选择作排它性的二选一。 但当饮料已经领回,须分配给队员自己所要的饮料品类时,他会问:(13)Who of you asked for tea? 因为此时领队的关注点转化为确认哪些人点了tea。结合语法学家的论述,我个人以为可以简单总结如下:一般情况下,which用于在确定范围内的询问,排他性选择意义明显;who和what多用于不明确范围的询问。当用于确定范围时,不具明显的排它意味,重点在于确认。当然,真正领会其中的差异对于英语为外语的学习者来讲并非易事,但上述分析可供参考。
2024-08-13 16:03 回答问题
句1 的would宜视为不带词汇意义。首先,如果用(al)though以正常语序把句子改写成 Though they searched, they...,其基本意思相同。 其次,如果把would换成更为常见的might,句子也表达同样的意思。由此可见原句的would(或might)只具句法功能,不具词汇意义。句2 的这种句式不常见,可能有点老旧,本人不太熟悉,不敢断言。但个人感觉就实义动词不定式say前置于句首这点而言,它跟句1的句式属于同一个大类,不同的是把as换成了what。如果说的是现在一般情况,就用情态助动词就用will(CGOEL-18.19注[b])。我觉得句中的 would(will)带不带词汇意义是模棱两可的。一方面可以理解为would(will)表示意愿。句意为:我(你)想咋说都行(愿意咋说就咋说),他就是不去。如果把主语改成非第一人称,这一点就更为明显。例如: Say what they will, she goes her own way. 但另一方面,句2也可解释为No matter what I said, he refused to go。所以原句的would在语义上似乎可有可无,不具明显的情态意义,只是因为不定式say前置于句首而不得不在主语后添加一个功能词而已。同句1的动词前置句式一样,合理推测可用might替换would。从这个角度讲,would可视为不具有完全的词汇意义。句3 的should也是模棱两可的。但我更倾向于带有一定程度的词汇意义,表示较大的可能性,本句中表示常态或习惯。但是删除should句意也不会产生很大区别,所以,说它不具有词汇意义也并非不可。should的很多用法都具有这种两重性。 句4的should (not) 应该有词汇意义,表示较大可能性,也就是一种预期。其确定性大致介于may和will之间。 最后还是那句话,would和should是否具有词汇意义(情态意义)有时候界限不太明确,非此即彼的判定未必合适。 个人意见,仅供参考。
2024-06-09 17:50 回答问题
此处章振邦《新编高级英语语法》所称的评注性状语(wisely)就是夸克语法体系中的外加状语,具体说就是内容外加状语的B类:价值评估。wisely属于其中的Group (i)。Quirk说的很清楚:These express a judgment on what is being said as a whole and they normally apply the same judgment simultaneously to the subject of the clause. 也就是说,既是对正在说的整句话的评价,也是对分句主语的评价。例如: Rightly, Mrs Jensen consulted her lawyer. 本句解释为:She was right and her action was right. 因此,章振邦用lt was wise of her not to attempt to apologize解释She wisely didn't attempt to apologize没有问题,你用for替换of也没问题。 但wisely不是下加状语。另外,还得提醒不要过于纠缠术语名称。
2024-06-09 14:01 回答问题
1.当并列连词直接连接动词的情况下,通常视为并列句主语的省略。如(01)She stood up and went out=She stood up and she went out.2. 但有观点认为,如果两个谓语动词表达了不可分离的一个过程,或者两个动词具有直接的因果关系,则宜视为并列谓语。(02)He fired and killed the wolf. 此句宜理解为并列谓语,因为fired和killed the wolf有直接的因果关系,不宜被视为两个可分割过程。再比较: (03)Mary sang and danced at the party. (04)Mary sang and then danced at the party.句(03)的sang and danced可视为不可分离的同一个过程(边跳边唱),则不宜理解为并列句省略主语,不等同于Mary sang and she danced at the party;句(04)则为并列句省略主语,因为两个动词表达了两个不同的过程,故= Mary sang and then she danced at the party。3. 按上述第2条所引用的观点,我觉得上述6句大多是并列句省略主语,但句(4)宜视为并列谓语。4.但上述第2条提到的只是一个说法,并非严格可靠而被普遍接受。例如:(05)Mary stood up and began to dance. 虽然此句中两个谓语动作是可分离的,但Royal English Grammar依然认为一般情况下这被视为一个简单句(并列谓语);如果在and 后添加主语she,则为并列句。同时,作者又认为有时候难以区分究竟是并列句还是并列谓语。Quirk似乎也有这个意思,在CGOEL的13.12一节他说:And and or may link constituents smaller than a clause; for example, they may link predicates, thus in effect allowing ellipsis of a second or subsequent subject :(06)I may see you tomorrow or (I) may phone later in the day.既然是可以连接“小于分句”的成分,例如连接谓语,这说明是并列谓语;但又说实际上允许第二个分句省略主语,这好像又成了并列句省略主语。那么,句(06)究竟是什么结构呢? Quirk认为是两可的。他继续分析道:For example, the coordinate construction in :(07)They have already finished their work and gone home. can be viewed as a clause coordination in which a subject, operator, and adverbial have been ellipted(主语、操作词和状语省略的分句并列); or it can be viewed as a single clause containing two coordinate predications.(含有两个并列谓语的单一分句)因此,我觉得在实践中多数情况下不必考虑两种结构的语法名称,尤其在缺乏语境的单句中,没必要为此纠结。5. 在并列连词连接两个wh-名词性分句时,第二个以及后面的分句都可以省略wh-连接代词或连接副词。例如:(08)I noticed how Mary talked to them and (how) they answered her. (GCE)其它并列手段(连词或逗号等)连接其它分句从属分句事亦如此。例如(均源于Quirk):(09)They admired a man who could make up his mind quickly and (who) would keep his word.(10) If I can find the letter and (if) you are interested in it, I'll let you have it.(11)He asked to be transferred, because he was unhappy, (because) he saw no drospect of promotion, and (because) conditions were far better at the other office. (12)He didn't tell us whether to wait for him or (whether) to go on without him. 再说句题外话,本网站网友不少问题都牵扯句子成分份的分析和术语的名称等问题。但其中相当比例的问题并没有完全统一的标准,也缺乏实际的价值,适可而止就好。个人己见,仅做参考!
2024-05-24 09:54 回答问题
1. I would receive £1,000 a year more是正常的表述,没有问题。下面的例句摘自时代周刊和经济学人杂志: We would provide $600 million a year more for schools. As a result, the importing world will lave to spend about $35 billion a year more for the same quantity of oil. These cost billions of dollars to build and tens of millions a year more to run. 当然也可以把more用在数量之后。如: If Kerry's tax increase were law, the average family would pay $657 more a year. 据初步观察,在币种用符号表示的情况下这两种用法比例接近。2. 即使币种不用符号,直接用英文名称,more也可置于句末。例如:This country could probably be making several billion dollars a year more if it were willing to sell to just anybody. A successful term in the West Wing can mean a couple of million dollars a year more in salary and consulting fees, an insider estimates.