| 单词 | 语法规则 |
| 释义 | 〔ungrammatical〕Not in accord with the rules of a prescriptive grammar.不合语法的：不符合规定的语法规则的〔grammar〕The system of rules implicit in a language, viewed as a mechanism for generating all sentences possible in that language.语法规则：隐含在一种语言中的规则体系，被看作在该语言中生成所有可能的语句的机制〔every〕Every is representative of a large class of English words and expressions that are singular in formbut felt to be plural in sense.The class includes, for example, noun phrases introduced byevery, any, and certain uses of some. These expressions invariably take a singular verb;we say Every car has (not have ) been tested. Anyone is (not are ) liable to fall ill. But when a sentence contains a pronoun whose antecedent is introduced byevery, grammar and sense pull in different directions.The grammar of these expressions requires a singular pronoun, as in Every car must have its brakes tested, but people persist in using the plural pronoun,as in Every car must have their brakes tested. Although the latter pattern is common in the speech of all groups,it is still widely regarded as grammatically incorrect in writing. ·The effort to adhere to the grammatical rule leads to various complications, however.The first is grammatical.When a pronoun refers to a phrase containingevery or any that falls within a different independent clause, the pronoun cannot be singular.Thus it is simply not English to sayEvery man left; he took his raincoat with him. Nor can one sayNo one could be seen, could he? Writers unwilling to use plural forms in these examples must find another way of expressing their meaning,either by rephrasing the sentence so as to get the pronoun into the same clause (as inEvery man left, taking his raincoat with him ) or by substituting another word forevery or any (as in All the men left; they took their raincoats with them. ) · The second complication is political.When a phrase introduced byevery or any refers to a group containing both men and women, what shall be the gender of the singular pronoun?This matter is discussed in the Usage Note athe. See Usage Note at all ,any ,each ,either ,he 1neither ,none Every 是一大类英语单词和短语的代表， 它们在形式上是单数的，但在意义上感觉起来却是复数。例如，这一类词中所包括的由every，any 和某些用法中的 some 所引导的名词短语。 这些短语毫无例外的跟单数动词，我们说每辆车都已 （不是 have ） 被测试过。 每个人都（不是 are ） 会生病 。 但是当一个句子中包括一个由先行词every 引导的代词时， 从句法和意义上就要区分不同的情况了。象每一辆车必须测试它的制动器 这样的表达法在语法上要求使用一单数代词， 但人们总习惯于用复数代词，象Every car must have their brakes tested 这样。 虽然后面这种形式在各种团体的讲话中非常普遍，但它在写作中仍广泛地被认为是语法上的错误。无论如何，坚持语法规则的努力总会导致各种各样的复杂问题。首先是语法上的复杂性。当一个代词指代一个短语，而这个短语中包括every 或 any 属于另一个与此代词所在子句不同的独立子句中时， 这个代词不能用单数形式。因此很容易理解英国人为何不说每个人离开时，都拿着各自的雨衣 ， 也不说没有人会被看到，不是吗？ 。 不愿意在这些例子中用复数形式的书写者必须找到另外一种表达他们意思的方法，或者可以通过重新改变句子的说法以使代词与其指代的短语同属一个从句中（如Every man left， taking his raincoat with him ）， 或者通过以另一个词代替every 或 any 的方法（如 All the man left；they took their raincoats with them ）。 第二是政治上的复杂性。当一个被every 或 any 引导的短语指代的一个团体中既有男人又有女人时， 单数代词的词性怎么确定呢？这个问题在单词he的用法说明中将被讨论 参见 all,any,each,either,he1neither,none〔Panini〕Indian grammarian. HisAshtadhyayi, one of the first works of descriptive linguistics, presents grammatical rules for Sanskrit. 帕尼尼：印度语法学家。他的《八章书》 是首先叙述语言学的著作之一，是梵语的语法规则 〔accompany〕 However,by is quite commonly used in sentences of the second type, and the usage is grammatically defensible.The phrase introduced withby normally represents the subject of a related active sentence; thus, the sentenceThe salmon was accompanied by a delicious watercress salad is the unexceptional passive of the sentence A delicious watercress salad accompanied the salmon. By the same token,with can be used with persons when they are the instruments of an act of accompanying performed by someone else. We can sayThe Secret Service accompanied the candidate with six burly bodyguards, or we can use the passiveThe candidate was accompanied with six burly bodyguards (by the Secret Service). The choice between the two prepositions really depends on the intended sense.Although the traditional rule may serve as a guide to which sense is likely to feel the most natural,it should not be taken as a categorical stricture.但是by 在第二种形式的句子中也常用， 而且这种用法在语法上是可行的。由by 引导的短语一般表示一相关主动句中的主语； 因此句型伴有可口的水田芥菜色拉的鲑鱼 就是 用可口的水田芥菜色拉来搭配鲑鱼 这类句型的必然被动语态。 同样，当某些人是其他人所安排的陪同活动中的工具的时候，with 也可用于人。 我们可以说特工处派了六个强壮的保镖护随候选人， 或者我们可以用被动态用六个强壮的保镖护随候选人（是由秘密机关安排的）。 事实上是基于使用意图而在这两个介词之间进行选择的。虽然以传统的语法规则为导引可使人感到含义上极为自然，但不能就此认为这是绝对的限制〔law〕the laws of grammar; the laws of visual perspective.语法规则；透视法则〔grammatical〕Conforming to the rules of grammar:遵循语法规则的：〔than〕Since the 18th centurygrammarians have insisted thatthan should be regarded as a conjunction in all its uses, so that a sentence such asBill is taller than Tom should be construed as an elliptical version of the sentence Bill is taller than Tom is. According to this view,the case of a pronoun followingthan is determined by whether the pronoun serves as the subject or object of the verb that is "understood.” Thus, the standard rule requiresPat is taller than I (not me ) on the assumption that this sentence is elliptical forPat is taller than I am but allowsThe news surprised Pat more than me, since this sentence is taken as elliptical forThe news surprised Pat more than it surprised me. However,than is quite commonly treated as a preposition when followed by an isolated noun phrase, and as such occurs with a pronoun in the objective case:John is taller than me. Though this usage is still widely regarded as incorrect,it is predominant in speechand has reputable literary precedent.It is also consistent with the fact thatthan is clearly treated as a preposition in the than whom construction, as ina poet than whom (not than who ) no one has a dearer place in the hearts of his countrymen. Still, the writer who risks a sentence such asMary is taller than him in formal writing must be prepared to defend the usage against objections of critics who are unlikely to be dissuaded from their conviction that the usage is incorrect. · Comparatives usingas . . . as can be analyzed in a parallel way to those using than. Traditional grammarians insist thatI am not as tall as he is the only correct form, and though both literary precedent and syntactic arguments can be marshaled in support of the analysis of the secondas as a preposition (which would license I am not as tall as him ), one should treat this use ofas as a conjunction in formal writing. See Usage Note at as 1自18世纪以来，语法学家坚持以为than 在其所有用法中均应被看作连词， 因此，在诸如Bill is taller than Tom 的句子中应解释为句子 Bill is taller than Tom is 的省略说法。 根据这一观点，than 后跟随代词的情况取决于该代词作为所“理解”的动词的主语还是谓语。 这样，标准规则要求Pat is taller than I （而不是 me )， 考虑到这个句子是Pat is taller than I am 的省略， 但允许The news surprised Pat more than me ， 因为这个句子被认当是The news surprised Pat more than it surprised me 的省略。 然而，当than 跟随一个独立名词短语时常被看作是介词， 如代词用于宾语的情况：John is taller than me 。 尽管这种用法仍然被广泛认为是错误的，但它仍在口语中占主要地位，并且有著名的文学先例。它也符合than 在 than whom 结构中显然被认为是介词的事实， 就象在a poet than whom （而不是 than who ) no one has a dearer place in the hearts of his countrymen 。 然而，冒险在正式写作中应用诸如Mary is taller than him 的作者必须准备针对那些不可能被劝服放弃坚信这种用法是错误的批评家们的反对意见而对此种用法进行辩护。 用比较级as…as 可以用与 than 相同的方式进行分析。 传统的语法学家坚持认为I am not as tall as he 是唯一正确的形式， 尽管文学先例和语法规则都能支持第二个as 作为介词（即允许 I am not as tall as him )的分析， 我们仍应该把这个as 作为正式写作中的连词 参见 as1〔who〕The traditional rules that determine the use ofwho and whom are relatively simple: who is used for a grammatical subject, where a nominative pronoun such as I or he would be appropriate, andwhom is used elsewhere. Thus, we writeThe actor who played Hamlet was there, sincewho stands for the subject of played Hamlet; andWho do you think is the best candidate? where who stands for the subject of is the best candidate. But we writeTo whom did you give the letter? sincewhom is the object of the preposition to; andThe man whom the papers criticized did not show up, sincewhom is the object of the verb criticized. ? Considerable effort and attention are required to apply the rules correctly in complicated sentences.To produce correctly a sentence such asI met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite, we must anticipate when we writewhom that it will function as the object of the verb extradite, several clauses distant from it.It is thus not surprising that writers from Shakespeare onward should often have interchangedwho and whom. And though the distinction shows no signs of disappearing in formal style,strict adherence to the rules in informal discourse might be taken as evidence that the speaker or writer is paying undue attention to the form of what is said, possibly at the expense of its substance.In speech and informal writingwho tends to predominate over whom; a sentence such asWho did John say he was going to support? will be regarded as quite natural, if strictly incorrect. By contrast, the use ofwhom where who would be required, as inWhom shall I say is calling? may be thought to betray a certain linguistic insecurity. ? When the relative pronoun stands for the object of a preposition that ends a sentence,whom is technically the correct form: the strict grammarian will insist onWhom (not who ) did you give it to? But grammarians since Noah Webster have argued that the excessive formality ofwhom in these cases is at odds with the relative informality associated with the practice of placing the preposition in final position and that the use of who in these cases should be regarded as entirely acceptable. ? The relative pronounwho may be used in restrictive relative clauses, in which case it is not preceded by a comma, or in nonrestrictive clauses, in which case a comma is required.Thus, we may say eitherThe scientist who discovers a cure for cancer will be immortalized, where the clausewho discovers a cure for cancer indicates which scientist will be immortalized, orThe mathematician over there, who solved the four-color theorem, is widely known, where the clausewho solved the four-color theorem adds information about a person already identified by the phrase the mathematician over there. ? Some grammarians have argued that onlywho and not that should be used to introduce a restrictive relative clause that identifies a person. This restriction has no basis either in logic or in the usage of the best writers;it is entirely acceptable to write eitherthe man that wanted to talk to you or the man who wanted to talk to you. ? The grammatical rules governing the use ofwho and whom apply equally to whoever and whomever. See Usage Note at else ,that ,whose 确定用法的传统规则who 和 whom 相对简单： who 语法上用作主语，同 I 或 he 等主格代词的位置相同， 而whom 用于别处。 这样，我们写The actor who played Hamlet was there （演哈姆雷特的演员在那边）， 因此who 代表的是 played Hamlet 的主语。 在句子Who do you think is the best candidate? （你认为谁是最好的候选人?）中 who 代表 is the best candidate 的主语。 但是我们说To whom did you give the letter? （你把信给谁了?）， 因为whom 是介词 to 的宾语； 在句子The man whom the papers criticized did not show up, （报纸上批评的那个人没有来）， 因为whom 是动词 criticized 的宾语 。在复杂的句子里，正确应用这些规则需要相当的努力和注意。正确地造出如I met the man whom the government had tried to get France to extradite （我遇到了政府曾努力让法国引渡的那个人）这样的句子， 在写whom 之前我们必须预知它将作动词 extradite 的宾语， 尽管两个词离得很远。这也就难怪自莎士比亚以来的作家经常把who 和 whom 交换使用了。 尽管在正式文体中两者区别仍然存在，但如果在非正式的交谈中严格地遵守这些规则会被认为说话者或作者可能不顾内容而过分注视说话的形式。在口语和非正式书面语中，who 趋向于代替 whom; 人们会认为象Who did John say he was going to support? （约翰说他将支持谁?）这样句子很自然，尽管严格来说它是不正确的。 相反，在应该用who 的地方用 whom 则显出一种语言上的不稳定， 如Whom shall I say is calling? （我说是谁在打电话?）。 当关系代词替代句尾的介词宾语时，whom 在理论上是正确的形势： 严格的语法坚持Whom （而不是 who ) did you give it to?（你把它给谁了？） 但从诺·韦伯斯特以来的语法学家认为whom 在这种情况下过分正式，而把介词放在句尾相对来说又不正式，这就有了矛盾，所以在这种情况下用 who 完全可以接受。 关系代词who 可以用在限定关系从句中，前面不要加逗号， 也可用在非限定关系从句中，则需要加逗号。所以我们既可以说The scientist who discovers a cure for cancer will be immortalized （发现治愈癌症的方法的科学家将会因此而不朽）， 在此处从句who discovers a cure for cancer 指这样的科学家将会不朽， 也可以说The mathematician over there, who solved the four-color theorem, is widely known （在那边的数学家非常出名，他解决了四色定理）， 从句who solved the four-color theorem 给已经由短语 the mathematician over there 确定了的人增加了一些有关他的信息。 有些语法学家认为只有who 而不是 that 可以连接表示人的限定性关系从句。 这种限制在逻辑上没有根据，在最优秀作家的用法中也未有根据；无论说the man that wanted to talk to you （想要跟你说话的那个人）或 the man who wanted to talk to you 都是完全可以接受的。 有关who 和 whom 的语法规则同样适用于 whoever 和 whomever 参见 else,that,whose〔transformation〕The process of converting a syntactic construction into a semantically equivalent construction according to the rules shown to generate the syntax of the language.语句结构转换：根据产生语法规则把一个语法结构转换成语义上的结构〔liable〕Liable, apt, and likely are often used interchangeably in constructions with following infinitives, as inJohn is liable to lose, John is apt to lose, and John is likely to lose. The three words are distinct in meaning.A widely repeated rule holdsthatliable should only be used if the subject would be adversely affected by the outcome expressed by the infinitive. The rule therefore permitsJohn is liable to fall out of his chair if he doesn't sit up straight but notThe chair is liable to be slippery, though constructions of the latter type have long been common in reputable writing.Apt usually suggests that the subject has a natural tendency enhancing the probability of an outcome, and that the speaker is in some way apprehensive about the outcome.Thusapt is more naturally used in a sentence like The fuel pump is apt to give out at any minute than in Even the clearest instructions are apt to be misinterpreted by those idiots (since the instructions are not at fault)or inThe fuel pump is apt to give you no problems for the life of the car (since there is no reason that the speaker should regard such an outcome as unfortunate).Likely is more general than either liable or apt. It ascribes no particular property to the subject that enhances the probability of the outcome:whileJohn is apt to lose the election may suggest that the loss will result from something John does or fails to do, John is likely to lose the election does not. Nor does it suggest anything about the desirability of the outcome from the point of view of either the speaker or the subject.A football coach who saysWe are apt to win may be suspected of sarcasm,and one who saysWe are liable to win may be suspected of having bet on the opposition;onlyWe are likely to win is consistent with the expression of an unambivalent expectation of victory. See Usage Note at likely Liable，apt 和 likely 在如下不定式结构中经常可以互换， 例如 John is liable to lose，John is apt to lose 和 John is likely to lose 。 这三个词的意思是有区别的。一条公认的语法规则认为，只有当主语受不定式所表示的动作或结果的不利影响时，才使用liable 。 因此这条规则允许说如果约翰不坐直身子的话，他很容易从椅子上掉下来的 ， 但不允许说椅子可能很滑 ， 尽管在规范的写作中，后一种类型的句型已经很普遍了。Apt 通常表示主语有增加某种结果的可能性的自然倾向， 而且说话者对此结果多少有些忧虑。因此，apt 用在句子 燃料泵可能随时停止运转 中，比用在 即使是最明了的指令也有可能被那些白痴误解 中更自然 （因为错的不是指令），也比用在燃料可能不会对你的车的使用寿命带来什么问题 中更合适 （因为说话者没有理由认为这样一个结果很不幸）。Likely 比 liable 或 apt 更具概括性。 它并不说明增加了一个结果的可能性的主语是否具有何特性：句子约翰在选举中可能会失败 可能暗示失败归因于约翰所做的或没能做的某件事， 而句子约翰在选举中有可能失败 则没有这种暗示。 另外，它也没有关于说话者或主语是否喜欢某一结果的暗示。如果一位足球教练说We are apt to win ， 他可能带有讽刺意味，但如果他说We are liable to win ， 他的意思是他认为他们可能会输；只有说We are likely to win ，才明确表示有希望获胜 参见 likely |
| 随便看 |
|
英汉汉英双解词典收录301015条英汉双解翻译词条，可根据汉字查询相应的英文词汇，基本涵盖了全部常用汉字的英文读音、翻译及用法，是英语学习及翻译工作的有利工具。