Re: [文法] had been在這裡的用法

看板Eng-Class作者theyangist (theyangist)時間12年前 (2013/03/04 01:33)推噓8(8推 0噓 30→)

留言38則, 8人參與討論串2/3 (看更多)

※ 引述《gecer (gecer)》之銘言： : They favored shock charges that could break the enemy line : through sheer force, in the "spirit of the bayonet," the way wars : had been fought in the 19th and 18th century. : 請教這裡為什麼會用had been fought...而不是 were fought or have been fought? 應該先說這個作家犯了一個錯誤：要跟 "19th and 18th century" 修改到 "19th and 18th centuries" 對於您本來問的問題，有簡單的答案。 1.) Shock charges were the way [in which] wars had been fought in the 19th and 18th centuries. 1.1.) Shock charges were the way. 1.2.) Wars had been fought in that way in the 19th and 18th centuries. 1.21.) Wars had been fought in that way in the 19th century. 1.211.) Wars had been fought in that way. 1.2111.) Wars had been fought. 1.21111.）Wars had been fought [by x]. 1.211111.) x had fought wars. 1.22.) Wars had been fought in that way in the 18th century. 因為被動式跟您的問題無關，要看(1.2.11111)號句子: "x had fought wars." 這句的意思說 (a) "x fought wars." (過去) (b) "x isn't fighting wars." (完成) 以上的細節顯示"had fought"是合文法的動詞變化： x fought wars in that way. (歷史的事實) x fought wars in that way in the 19th century. (歷史的事實) x isn't fighting wars in that way. (現在的事實) x isn't fighting wars in that way in the 19th century. (時間的不可能性！) 因此，也可以合文法地寫"Wars were fought"，但這樣寫您沒有告訴我們現在的情況。 "Wars were fought [by x]."僅是(a)的被動式。因為作家不想暗指有可能(b)不對，沒有好理由從過去式改變。 -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 101.12.195.184

→

zofloya

03/04 09:15, , 1^F

03/04 09:15, 1^F

推