[文法] to v / ving

看板Eng-Class作者 (...)時間13年前 (2013/02/21 13:56), 編輯推噓0(0推 0噓 44→)
留言44則, 6人參與, 6年前最新討論串1/1
1. Still, his parents were patient, especially Jim's fater, who often took Jim ____ on weekends. A. fish B. to fish C. fished D. fishing 請問B.D.都可以選嗎，意思上有差異嗎? 謝謝 2. Being one of the most outstanding American poets of the 20th century, Robert Frost is the only poet ____ the prestigious Pulitzer Prize for literature four times. A. winning B. to win C. win D. to winning 我的問題還是在 winning 與 to win 之間的差異何在，以這一題而言，選哪一個比 較好，還是兩者都可以是答案，謝謝 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 1.175.141.144 ※ 編輯: ambrosio 來自: 1.175.141.144 (02/21 14:03)
→
02/21 14:12, , 1F
1.B: take sb. to do sth. 帶某人去做某事
02/21 14:12, 1F
→
02/21 14:14, , 2F
2.A 原本關代the only poet "who wins" the prestigious..
02/21 14:14, 2F
→
02/21 14:15, , 3F
改成分詞構句：the only poet "winning" the prestigious
02/21 14:15, 3F
→
02/21 14:16, , 4F
不定詞不是可以當形容詞後位修飾前面的名詞嗎?
02/21 14:16, 4F
→
02/21 14:16, , 5F
兩題都只有一個答案~個人淺見
02/21 14:16, 5F
→
02/21 14:26, , 6F
自問自答，剛剛問native speaker 1.taking 2 to win
02/21 14:26, 6F
→
02/21 14:30, , 7F
@@" really?
02/21 14:30, 7F
→
02/21 14:33, , 8F
really, but he can't really explain why @@
02/21 14:33, 8F
→
02/21 14:40, , 9F
可是我比較推y大的講解耶@@"
02/21 14:40, 9F
→
02/21 14:47, , 10F
我剛也去問了native speaker，答案和原po一樣: DB
02/21 14:47, 10F
→
02/21 14:48, , 11F
所以請自動忽略我上面的解釋...><
02/21 14:48, 11F
→
02/21 14:51, , 12F
他說1用to fish也ok，但sounds unnatural
02/21 14:51, 12F
→
02/21 15:01, , 13F
2 的 to win 應該比較沒有爭議，基本上這個句字不會用winning
02/21 15:01, 13F
→
02/21 15:02, , 14F
雖然分詞構句文法好像對，但是這是一個慣用句型
02/21 15:02, 14F
→
02/21 15:05, , 15F
至於 1，如果以中學程度我們台灣人很習慣只要是第二個動詞就
02/21 15:05, 15F
→
02/21 15:06, , 16F
馬上想到要用不定詞，但是以現實的語言來說
02/21 15:06, 16F
→
02/21 15:07, , 17F
native speaker 很多時候如果可以用 ving 就會選擇 ving
02/21 15:07, 17F
→
02/21 15:08, , 18F
這邊我不覺得 take sb. to do sth 會到 unnatural
02/21 15:08, 18F
→
02/21 15:08, , 19F
畢竟在 LDOCE 上面第一個解釋的例句就有 take somebody to do
02/21 15:08, 19F
→
02/21 15:09, , 20F
something，表示這算是常用句，只是可能 native speaker
02/21 15:09, 20F
→
02/21 15:09, , 21F
自己說話習慣的問題
02/21 15:09, 21F
→
02/21 15:09, , 22F
不過別的例子就不一定是這樣，所以還是要多看實際例子
02/21 15:09, 22F
→
02/21 15:09, , 23F
而不是單純用自己覺得怎樣就是怎樣
02/21 15:09, 23F
→
02/21 15:15, , 24F
所以這樣答案算有爭議嗎？ 如果是出現在單選的考題上.
02/21 15:15, 24F
→
02/21 15:15, , 25F
http://goo.gl/2G2e3 可以參考別人寫的關於動名詞和不定詞
02/21 15:15, 25F
→
02/21 15:16, , 26F
從語感和語意上面去推敲
02/21 15:16, 26F
→
02/21 15:17, , 27F
第一題如果出單選我會覺得出得不是很好
02/21 15:17, 27F
→
02/21 15:26, , 28F
thx
02/21 15:26, 28F
→
02/21 19:08, , 29F
感謝p大的解釋，但有個疑問,看了上面有關動名詞和不定詞
02/21 19:08, 29F
→
02/21 19:09, , 30F
的網站,和我原本認知差不多,但今天請老外解釋第二題
02/21 19:09, 30F
→
02/21 19:11, , 31F
他覺得Robert Frost is dead, so he's done.
02/21 19:11, 31F
→
02/21 19:12, , 32F
He won't "continue to" win the prize. Gerund implies
02/21 19:12, 32F
→
02/21 19:15, , 33F
continuity.這種說法似乎和網站上(一般認知)的相反
02/21 19:15, 33F
→
02/21 19:17, , 34F
雖然老外最後有說他也不太會解釋，所以這種說法可信嗎？
02/21 19:17, 34F
→
02/21 19:18, , 35F
第二題是否單純就是"慣用法"？
02/21 19:18, 35F
→
02/21 19:18, , 36F
雖然說是慣用法但是還是可以解釋
02/21 19:18, 36F
→
02/21 19:19, , 37F
這邊 to 我個人覺得應該是相當於網頁中說的暗示
02/21 19:19, 37F
→
02/21 19:19, , 38F
be able to 的涵義
02/21 19:19, 38F
→
02/21 19:20, , 39F
btw 這也是今天才臨時搜尋到的，不過我覺得他寫的應該沒有
02/21 19:20, 39F
→
02/21 19:20, , 40F
太大的問題才對
02/21 19:20, 40F
→
02/21 19:30, , 41F
thanks~much clearer
02/21 19:30, 41F
→
09/07 00:17, , 42F
btw 這也是今天才臨 https://daxiv.com
09/07 00:17, 42F
→
12/02 18:30, , 43F
He won't "c https://daxiv.com
12/02 18:30, 43F
→
04/13 22:50, 6年前 , 44F
而不是單純用自己覺得怎 https://moxox.com
04/13 22:50, 44F
‣ 更多 ambrosio 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1H9RSYRU (Eng-Class)