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！

2023-11-12 23:03 回答问题

这个问题的解释最好是上面两位老师观点的综合，即第一，这是存在句型应该是没问题的，第二，这也是倒装。第三，楼主认为是a preserved letter不合理，正常的是 a letter preserved,至于怎么分析preserved,可能会有一些看法分歧，但我倾向于看作被动语态或补足成分，又或者是小句，但不是定语后置。（虽然有些情况可能是后置定语。）下面我分别举例说明。第一，存在句的形式很复杂，我只介绍不常见的相关例子 ，即及物动词出现在存在句，正常情况下是不被允许的，但是被动态的及物动词是常见的。比如 In recent years there has been produced more food than the country needs. （徐广联）） There‘s a new grammar been written.（夸克）当然，有人认为不是被动态，而是名词后的分词短语出现前置情况，这个自己判断吧，确实情况各有不同。以下例句类似楼主的例子There was presented (to the winner) by the mayor a gold medal. (Quirk et al. 1985 1409) --There was a gold medal presented to the winner by the mayor.(Quirk).There has been a whole box stolen. There was presented to me a papaya. There were shown to us, by the diggers, several interesting specimens.(Bolinger)。当然我们最常见的情况是分词后置There has been a wooden bridge built over the river. There's been a terrible mistake made. Has there been anyone killed? In each case there has been a serious mistake made. There has been a massive welcome organised. There has been a whole box stolen.=A whole box has been stolen. 附带：注意，有些情况下，被非宾格限制的及物动词完全可以被接受。(这些特殊情况应该是只做了解，切勿模仿）如：Then，all of a sudden, there reached her ear the sound of angel voices.  / At this point,there hit the embankment a shell from our own lines.( Kuno & Takami 2004 :40)第二，当there存在句的名词短语太长时，作为后置修饰语的分词也可以前移至名词短语之前，使句子显得较为平稳，合乎句子的末端尾重原则。There were running in the garden a group of children aged from seven to eleven.There was shown at the exhibition an electronic computer made in Shanghai.倘若名词短语的修饰语太长，这种分词的前移甚至是强制性的：From the Norweigan,Dannish and Iceland historians,and from some parts of the old Northern Poetry, there may be found a different idea about the character and domestic manners of the man who made themselves so unpleasant in their visits to the English and neighbouring coast. There has just been published as a Parliamentary paper the Convention between this country and the United States respecting the Protection and Propagation of Food Fishes in the waters contiguous to the United States and Canada. 也有人认为，这种句子系属there存在句的被动式和进行体。第三，preserved如果被看做是前置定语，意义很奇怪，不合逻辑--在华盛顿的文件中有一封被保存下来的信件（他保存的吗？显然不是）所以，应该是一封信被保存下来。这个preserved 表示的是信件所处的一种状态。这里想附带说明的是，国内语法有说明的多是把分词短语看作后置定语，这个其实很不合理，这个后置短语（分词，介词，形容词等）大多表示的都是逻辑主语所处的状态，而不是对其的描述或限制。当然也有情况是后置定语，这个要看上下文的具体情况。我引些例子：(8) a. There was a book completely burnt to ashes.b. There was a live pig roasted. (Milsark 1974: 84)Under the depictive analysis Hartmann argues for, (8a) is predicted to assert that there existed a book in acompletely burnt state. Our intuitions tell us, however, that the sentence actually asserts that there existedsome event in which a book was completely burnt. Similarly, (8b) is predicted to assert the existence of alive pig in a roasted state. But according to our intuitions, the sentence asserts instead that there was anevent of a live pig getting roasted (and, consequently, the pig ended up in a completely roasted state). Asfar as we can see, there is no way for the depictive analysis to overcome such inadequacies.  （这段话我就不翻了）个人观点，仅供参考。

2023-10-25 17:03 回答问题

神仙打架，我们也起哄一番。首先，对wh-关系词究竟属于主句还是关系句的争论久已有之，这一方面是分析方法的原因，同时也是语言本身奥繁复杂的结果。比如认为属于主句的The Adjunction Analysis(AA), originally due to Bresnan & Grimshaw (1978), assumes that the wh-phrase itself is in fact an external head, contrary to appearances; the FR-internal gap is the result of some process other than raising.另外一种分析把wh-phrase 归于自由关系从句The competing Raising Analysis（RA）, popularized in Groos & van Riemsdijk 1981 (there called ‘COMP Account’), assumes that some null nominal or determiner takes the FR clause as its complement. The disagreement, in short, is about the FR-internal vs. -external status of the wh-phrase. 这应该是产生张赵二人观点分歧的原因。这么看这个同时性并不是张教授的独家见解。The wh-phrase at the edge of the FR has to match selectional requirements of both matrix and embedded environments: The phrase is “shared”between both predicates, each imposing separate requirements. 如何解释其在主从句中两用共享时格问题和成分问题，就可能有了差异。我们常见的夸克语法和剑桥语法都是认为wh-phrase属于自由关系从句，是融合关系词，这个关系词在从句内也同时担当两个角色，既是NP（这个名词性关系从句实质上就是NP）名词短语中心词，又是从句主语，比如[Whoever said that] was trying to mislead you. 这个句子，Whoever is simultaneously head of the NP and subject of the relative clause that modifies it.这是Rodney Huddleston等人的观点。另外，大家基本都是把整个名词关系句看作一个成分作主语，宾语，表语等，只是对what等（缩合关系词）的语法推导解释，那是各显神通。其实也是偶尔有人把它们直接称作宾语或主语的。比如Andrew Radford的书中有：(vii)[Whomever you elect] will serve a four-year term : Here, the free relative pronoun whomever originates as the complement of (and so is assigned accusative case by) the verb elect, even though it ends up as the subject of will.老点的书《英美语惯用法词典》也有例子：Whoever (=Anyone who) says so is a liar.谁那样说，谁就在说谎。〔whoever 具有双重构造，是says，is两者的主语。也就是说is的主语he被省略，包含在 whoever中)，【个人观点：其实，what就是what，就是一个词，表达一个概念，把它解释成the thing which等也只是个解释而已，（应该有某种我们没发现的合理缺省），并不能把它们和原词等同。很明显，它们起到的作用是不同的，只能说是真值上大致是相等了。用心体会一下，我们会发现，what的意义范围和语气都要比改写the thing which强很多，what让我们有整体的，所有的那种强调的感觉（all），语气上是更贴近更关心的状态。就像我们用it，that，等指代前事，都不如which关系代词心理距离更显得贴近。事实上，this is what I need就是一个强调句】这种一分为二的解释确实带来词性和内容上的问题。所以，跟主流看法不同的观点也有出现，比如把what-就看作个体，而不是融合体。生成分析上它后面可能是零操作词that，或者干脆是它的影子复制。重点看中括号里面从句包括的内容，也就了解了各种假设。I eat [ NP/DP Ø [ CP what(-ever) i they cook t i ]]   Ø表示空的，不存在a. I eat [what(-ever food) [ CP they cook _ ]]b. I eat [the food [ CP (that) they cook _ ]]I eat [what(-ever) i [ CP they cook it i ]]I eat [what(-ever) [ CP what(-ever) i they cook t i ]]那么，到底该怎么理解这个问题呢？很简单，把它们结合起来，语言的多样性需要根据实际情况用两种方法分别予以解释。这是比较新的观点。we argue that both analyses coexist as derivational options: some FRs require a raising derivation, while others are inconsistent with it. We support this conclusion with evidence from reconstruction, by showing that the wh-phrase of an FR can be interpreted both internally (in the FR) and externally (in the main clause), necessitating both types of analyses. 再说那个格的问题。英语主要是德语方言的变种，幸好远离德国本土后各种性数格变化，强弱动词变化，逐渐消失了，有限的一点也被现代人鄙视，比如，英国基本不用whomever，而美国也只是在正式场合才用。所以基本上用whoever就对了，但准确点还是最好根据其在它本身句中的功用成分来确定。这里简单提一下成分匹配和格问题a. I drank [ FR whatever there was ]b. I’ll reread whatever paper John has worked *(on)c. *I’ll reread on whatever paper John has workedd. I’ll live wherever you livee. I’ll live in whatever town you live (in)If the matrix verb requires an NP/DP, then the FR pronoun has to be of thatcategory, as we see in (1a-c). The same holds for a PP requirement (1e).However, English has preposition stranding. Although there is a conflict in(1b) with respect to the forms required by the verbs – the matrix verb re-quires a direct object, i.e. an NP/DP, and the embedded verb a PP –, a FR ispossible, if the pronoun moves up alone and strands its preposition (1b).格问题也列举几个例子，I will give a bonus to whoever works the hardest.I will call whomever the doctor recommends.Whoever said that (S) does not understand the question.[Whomever you elect] will serve a four-year term但是有时候也可能碰到不太合乎标准的例子，不足为怪，感觉习惯使然。比如a man whom I don't think has any friends主格却用了宾格形式，不符合我们上面的规定，但确实没错，合乎语法，原因恐怕是离think太近，人们产生了错觉。以剑桥语法为参考做个结尾吧(5) a. Whoever loves you must be mad.    (Nom – Nom à who)b. I hate who(m)ever you love.       (Acc – Acc à who(m))c.?? I hate whomever loves you.      (Acc – Nom à who)d.?* Whomever loves you must be mad.   (Nom – Nom à who)As it turns out, however, this constraint is not very strict (cf. Huddleston et al. 2002: 1974): although the constructions in (5c-d) are more likely to be regarded as questionable, they frequently occur (especially in the COCA). Some examples are given in (6):(6) a. … to investigate, pursue and apprehend whomever started the fire (COCA)b. In fact, we know that whomever is nominated by our party will be subjected to the same kind of withering attacks. (COCA)  砖抛了，等拍！

2023-10-19 15:40 回答问题

小王同学布置的作业，不好意思老是不交。但这些专家的观点一般都有所本，未敢轻易臧否。下面仅试着解释一下。      插入语（parentheticals）这个概念大家的理解经常不一，但比较常见的就是结构上独立，不和其它成分发生语法上的联系，语义上，表示一种态度，解释或进一步的说明，删除后不影响句子基本意义的完整，从这几个条件看，上面两个句子里相关成分虽然能够删除，但是语义上是可能有变化的。因为这个what其实就是个所谓的缩合关系代词或者连接代词，在这种句子结构里起着一种变量的作用，和其它成分一起构成语义界定范围，而后面的东西才是要表达的定量，所以，what is called/ what we call 等类似的句子有时起着一种限定作用，删除以后不能保证句子的精确性。从结构上看，虽然有时候删除不影响意义，但是，这个删除的成分和句子是有着语法结构上的联系的，而删除的东西也不是一个独立完整的概念。语法研究者确实有人把这种结构看作插入语，但据我看到的资料，属于少数。多数是把它们看作自由关系从句，而且有个专门的名称叫 明晰自由关系从句（Transparent Free Relatives），geniuses和the lowly这些被称为Transparent Nucleus.  引个例子：1. John saw what he believed to be racoons outside. (Schütze & Stockwell 2019: 1)2. John ate what Mary cooked .1句是TFR，2句是FR。个人理解--这么称呼可能是因为自由关系从句所表达的一般都是模糊变量，而这里的明晰自由关系从句却含有明确的模糊变量的对应核心词，这个核心词与前面的what结构变量描述当然有语义重叠，所以，删除了好像对句子意义影响也不大（John saw raccoons outside (or at least, what he believed to be raccoons)，there is debate over whether this accurately reflects the meaning of (1).），这多少反映了这个成分语义上有插入语的性质. 要注意的是，我们说插入语或者自由关系从句是从功能性质方面解释的，具体到句法结构里的成分，应该是按常规来解析，比如上面a和b句，what-clause的句法成分当然是作saw的宾语。    小王同学说，Most of what we call geniuses are successful only because they have made extraordinary efforts. 不能分析为插入语，给出的结构理由很充分，去掉了what we call ,most of geniuses 不成立了，句法上证明有关联性。这种明晰自由关系从句公认的只有what一词能引导，最近也有学者认为who在某些情况下也可以（看例句总觉得意思很别扭，暂且排除）。而用在what明晰自由关系从句里的动词应该是能带有补语的动词（包括宾补，表语补语等predicative complements ）如call，name，describe, believe，seem,等，就是说，what在意义上是核心词的逻辑主语.指人的时候也用what，看几个例子，了解一下TFR和FR的区别：John should have married what/*who his mother would call a traditional woman.a. What John calls pebbles are lying on the lawn.b. What John calls a banjo is lying on his desk.(Schelfhout, Coopen & Oosdijk 2004) standard free relatives appear in the position that is occupied by nominals, where as transparent free relatives can be treated as AP, AdvP, PP, and nonfinite VP. If the kernel element is an AP, the whole free relative is regarded as AP.a. You’re definitely not [ AP what any one would describe as ecstatic].b. In that process I begin to work [ AdvP what I would call creatively].c. She definitely wasn’t [ PP what she’d call in love with Sam Butler].d. We started [ nonfinite VP what we call picking corn].(Kim 2011)transparent free relatives are transparent with regard to grammatical category as well as number agreement. (19) *There is what you ordered on your desk.(20) a. There is what John might call a banjo on his desk.b. *There is what John might call his banjo on his desk.(Schelfhout, Coopen & Oosdijk 2004)The ungrammaticality of the sentence (19) suggests that the standard free relative clause is definite. On the contrary, the definiteness of transparent free relatives seems to change depending on the clause-internal kernel NPs.个人理解，权作参考。

2023-10-06 03:08 回答问题

这个问题我赞同Alex老师的意见。各位老师引用的资料当然没错，但问题就出在单词的语义理解上。当我们问价格是多少的时候，是问的表示价值的价格数字，所以我们说“What' the price?” 当我们问一件物品价值多少，问的是物品的价值数量，所以我们说“How much is that?” 这和我们问房间号和问数学算式类似：What is your room number? What is two and two? 所以，单就表示价格的数字本身无所谓贵贱，只有高低，但是当我们进行价格比较的时候，比的就是它们代表的数量了，这时可以用much来表示量，只是可能这种比较的例句少，不好找佐证。我在韦氏词典看到一类似例句，可以证明价格比较可以用much，little等修饰。The price is less online than at the store, but once you add shipping costs, it’s a wash. [=the two prices are about the same] 另一个问题就是比较项的问题，这里that one 没有上下文，指代不明，如果就其本身来分析，则只能是指that price，而不是that skirt.所以，让句子意义明晰完整的可能说法应该是：The price of this skirt is three times as much as the price of that one. 或者The price of this skirt is three times as much as that one’s又或者如Alex老师所说The price of this skirt is three times as much as that one costs. 个人观点，仅供参考

2023-08-08 16:44 关注了问题

2023-07-30 21:33 回答问题

        让步状语从句是个挺有意思的话题，让步连词有几种来源：其一，和其它一些语言一样，英语中很多让步意义表达是和通用数量词相关的，如although含有all，albeit是all be it，anyway，for all ，all the same,（“ a typical example of the introduction of the emphatic particle all “into a (concessive) conditional protasis”）。albeit和 be it相似，但其历史是albeit（1385）早于be it（1611）；楼主的问题里也是和数量词有关，其原因大概是表示数量达到一定的认知限度，但事情仍然不能。。。所以，两个句子意思上一般都是反向而行的，as much as作为让步表达可能出现在十七世纪末，而much as 作为让步表达出现在十八世纪末。 母语者也是要听完句子能准确判断意义的，让步意义从句表示让步条件，而主句话锋一转，表达反向的（否定的）意义，因此，意义上是明确的，多听多练就会形成反射.。

2023-06-26 16:00 回答问题

这是一个目前不流行的观点，你既然看到相关文章，那里面就应该有介绍，你例子中的两个词reason .need想来也应该在范例之列。因为这两个词是此种观点的样板，据解释说，这种词一般都是抽象名词，其本身没有上下文的情况下语义不完整，需要一个补充说明部分，这两个部分一起表达一个整体概念。名词后不仅仅有不定式形式补语，还有介词短语形式等，国内资料我看到好像黄和斌的英语语法新论中有介绍。个人觉得，这其实和某些形容词后跟补语类似。同时，在存在句中，真正主语后的很多分词短语，其实也是补语成分，但国内语法书书一般不做论述，即使论及，也多是看作定语。仔细思考的话，定语和补语区别还是很明显的。

2023-06-20 00:30 回答问题

你的例句当然是正确的，这个按正常的可数名词变化，泛指和单指时用daily life，前有复数意义修饰词时用复数 daily lives，特指加the，录几个词典和语法书的例句：Road transport has a considerable effect on our daily lives.<<Collins Cobuild English Usage>>Differently abled seeks to provide an affirmative alternative, to encourage members of the“abled” population to appreciate the different skills by which those with a disability manage their daily lives. <<The Cambridge Guide to English Usage>>Her garden was a sanctuary from the stress of daily life. He needed a vacation to escape the routine of daily life. Television has become a part of our daily lives.  It has changed every aspect of daily life. （以上为韦氏词典例句）since cars are relevant to our daily lives, such oil is worth distinguishing:<<A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language>> On the one hand, normal daily life is largely concerned with the problems of the present or those of the quite near future ; <<The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language>> 用定冠词的情况Every modern country has it and with the increasing part that government plays in the daily life of every individual it is a serious burden.<< A DICTIONARY OF CONTEMPORARY AMERICAN USAGE>>  soap opera : a television or radio program that has continuing stories about the daily lives and problems of a group of people <<Merriam-Webster’s Advanced LEARNER’S English Dictionary>>