[問題]OG(11th)57

[hooey]

OG(11th)57.
Affording strategic proximity to the Strait of Gibraltar, Morocoo
was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they assumed that [u][u]if they did not hold it,their grip on Algeria was always insecure. [/u][/u]

(A) if they did not hold it, their grip on Algeria was always
insecure.
(B) without it their grip on Algeria would never be secure.
(C) thier grip on Algeria was not ever secure if they did not
hold it.
(D) without that, they could never be secure about their grip
on Algeria.
(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not
hold it.

ans:(B)

我有兩個笨問題：
1.是不是根據assumed推出conditional structure?
2.(B)是屬於if x happened, then y would happened的倒裝句嗎？

請大家指點，謝謝：）

[scujean]

1.由Morocoo
was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they [highlight=yellow]assumed[/highlight] that 。翻譯：因為她們假設如果沒有它，她們對Algeria的了解會不牢靠。

2.if they did not hold it,their grip on Algeria was always insecure是條件句，不完全根據根據assumed而知道，因為if 帶出的可能是條件句或假設語氣
3.條件句VS假設語氣，判斷法：
發生在過去→條件句下→if S+Ved, S+would+V
和過去事實相反→假設語
→if S+had Vp.p , S+would+have+Vp.p
4.B.不是屬於if x happened, then y would happened的倒裝句
5.B是和if they did not hold it,their grip on Algeria was always insecure意思差不多，但是文法才對的句子

[td91]

請問一下， E 選項錯在哪? 難道在這裡用倒裝有不妥嗎?
可否哪位板友可解答呢 ?
感激不盡...

[chvenson]

(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it.

根據OG11的解釋
Inverted word order is awkward and confusing; it could refer to either Morocco or Algeria

也就是說it指代不清 到底是Morocco還是Algeria
至於OG說倒裝awkward, confusing
我的看法 (不很確定 歡迎討論)
文法上否定副詞放句首要倒裝
倒裝的重點應該在強調 不過句意上看不出要強調些什麼

[scujean]

(E) never would their grip on Algeria be secure if they did not hold it.

根據OG11的解釋
Inverted word order is awkward and confusing; it could refer to either Morocco or Algeria

也就是說it指代不清 到底是Morocco還是Algeria
至於OG說倒裝awkward, confusing
我的看法 (不很確定 歡迎討論)
文法上否定副詞放句首要倒裝
倒裝的重點應該在強調 不過句意上看不出要強調些什麼←我猜，never would their grip be secure 是要強調be secure....

1.說的沒錯，原始句if thet did not hold it, their grip on...就沒有要強調什麼的意思，除非雷同原始句意的選項都不能選，才會選有歧意的選項...
2.否定副詞放句首，要倒裝，常見否副：not until /rarely /never / neither...nor

[td91]

感謝樓上二位的解惑，謝謝...

[ck1109]

請問
為何B的it沒有指代不清的問題
而E的it有這個問題??

[td91]

因為E 選項中，Algeria 跑到 it 的前面去了，變成跟摩洛哥在搶當 it 的指代詞....

[frenemy912]

請問這裡assume和if是不是有重複的意思, 所以選項B中沒有用if的句子?謝謝

[steris]

1.由Morocoo
was also of interest to the French throughout the first half of the twentieth century because they [highlight=yellow]assumed[/highlight] that 。翻譯：因為她們假設如果沒有它，她們對Algeria的了解會不牢靠。

2.if they did not hold it,their grip on Algeria was always insecure是條件句，不完全根據根據assumed而知道，因為if 帶出的可能是條件句或假設語氣
3.條件句VS假設語氣，判斷法：
發生在過去→條件句下→if S+Ved, S+would+V
和過去事實相反→假設語
→if S+had Vp.p , S+would+have+Vp.p
4.B.不是屬於if x happened, then y would happened的倒裝句
5.B是和if they did not hold it,their grip on Algeria was always insecure意思差不多，但是文法才對的句子

請問一下這題的 if 應該是條件子句吧？
因為莫北北上課時說他是假設法....
還說他是與現在事實相反的假設法
我聽的滿頭霧水
這題明明就在說二十世紀初的事
怎麼會與現在事實相反呢？

請問有沒有人可以幫我解答一下~
感激不盡~~

[hibettychen]

史實是這樣的：1912年3月，法國佔領摩洛哥。1956年3月，摩洛哥獲得獨立。

題目中：
...because they(French) assumed if they didn't hold it, their grip on Algeria would be always insecure.
事實上是法國在first half of the twentieth century有守住摩洛哥，所以當然是與"現在"事實相反。歷史事件是在過去的哪一年發生的，對"現在"來說都是一件事實。

根據老莫的專輯講提供的句型
If it were not for +n, S would V.
=Without + n, S would V.
所以我認為(B)選項中改成without it their...仍是與現在事實相反的假設法。

提供你做參考囉！有錯請指正，謝謝啦

[joyce0519]

題目中：
...because they(French) assumed if they didn't hold it, their grip on Algeria would be always insecure.
事實上是法國在first half of the twentieth century有守住摩洛哥，所以當然是與"現在"事實相反。歷史事件是在過去的哪一年發生的，對"現在"來說都是一件事實。

請問一下喔,可以舉各和"過去事實"相反的例子嗎?
我原先以為這題應該是和過去事實相反的

謝謝喔

[celivia]

史實是這樣的：1912年3月，法國佔領摩洛哥。1956年3月，摩洛哥獲得獨立。

題目中：
...because they(French) assumed if they didn't hold it, their grip on Algeria would be always insecure.
事實上是法國在first half of the twentieth century有守住摩洛哥，所以當然是與"現在"事實相反。歷史事件是在過去的哪一年發生的，對"現在"來說都是一件事實。

根據老莫的專輯講提供的句型
If it were not for +n, S would V.
=Without + n, S would V.
所以我認為(B)選項中改成without it their...仍是與現在事實相反的假設法。

提供你做參考囉！有錯請指正，謝謝啦

問一下若以Without + n, S would V.的句型,
為什麼it 和 their中間不用comma?

[siwala]

史實是這樣的：1912年3月，法國佔領摩洛哥。1956年3月，摩洛哥獲得獨立。

題目中：
...because they(French) assumed if they didn't hold it, their grip on Algeria would be always insecure.
事實上是法國在first half of the twentieth century有守住摩洛哥，所以當然是與"現在"事實相反。歷史事件是在過去的哪一年發生的，對"現在"來說都是一件事實。

根據老莫的專輯講提供的句型
If it were not for +n, S would V.
=Without + n, S would V.
所以我認為(B)選項中改成without it their...仍是與現在事實相反的假設法。

提供你做參考囉！有錯請指正，謝謝啦

問一下若以Without + n, S would V.的句型,
為什麼it 和 their中間不用comma?

根據老莫說法，有加逗點或者不加，都是可以的。

[siwala]

還有一個地方令我不解，
答案D-without that they could never be~~~~
為何that不對呢？