| 单词 | 句型 |
| 释义 | 〔fossil〕An archaic syntactic rule or pattern used only in idioms, asso be it. 古语法：一种只用于习语中的古体句法规则和句型，如so be it 〔syntactic〕Conforming to accepted patterns of syntax.按照句法的：遵循为公众所接受的造句句型的〔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〔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〔hardly〕The use ofhardly with a negative is avoided in Standard English. Some critics have been puzzled that adverbs such ashardly, rarely, and scarcely should be treated as negatives in the traditional strictures against double negation, which tars sentences likeI couldn't hardly see him with the same brush as I didn't get none. After all, they argue, the sentenceMary hardly laughed entails that Mary did laugh, not that she didn't,and therefore does not express a negative proposition.Buthardly and scarcely occur with other negative expressions in a number of ways. For one thing, they combine with items such asany and at all, which are characteristically associated with negative contexts: we sayI hardly saw him at all or I never saw him at all but notI occasionally saw him at all; we sayI hardly had any time or I didn't have any time but notI had any time, and so on. Like other negative adverbs,hardly triggers inversion of the subject and auxiliary when it begins a sentence. Thus we sayHardly had I arrived when she left, on the pattern of Never have I read such a book or At no time has he condemned the movement. Such inversion is not used with other adverbs:we would not sayOccasionally has he addressed this question or To a slight degree have they changed their position. The fact is that adverbs such ashardly are semantically negative in that they qualify a state or an event relative to the limiting case of nonoccurrence.Thus the meaning ofhardly is, roughly, "almost not at all"; the meaning ofrarely is "practically never"; and so forth. These adverbs are felt to have a negative component in their meaning,and it should not be surprising that grammarians have reacted to combinations ofhardly with negatives in the same way that they have reacted to combinations of pairs of negatives such as not and none. See Usage Note at double negative ,rarely ,scarcely Hardly 和一个否定词在一起的用法在标准英语中应尽量避免， 一些批评学家一直怀疑象hardly，rarely 和 scarcely 这样的副词在传统的双重否定的句中应被视为否定词， 这样的词使句子象I couldn't hardly see him 和 I didn't get none 一样被弄糟了， 他们争论说，毕竟句子Mary hardly laughed 的意思是玛丽的确笑了， 而不是她没笑，所以不表示否定的建议。但是hardly 和 scarcely 和其他的否定表示一起在许多方面出现， 举例说，他们和象any 和 at all 这样独特的和否定上下文联系的条目组合在一起， 我们说I hardly saw him at all 或 I never saw him at all , 但并不是I occasionally saw him at all； 我们说I hardly had any time 或 I didn't have any time 但不是I had any time 等。 象其它否定副词，hardly 在句子开头时引起主语和助动词的倒装， 于是我们说Hardly had I arrived when she left， 和 Never have I read such a book 或 At no time has he condemned the movement. 等同样的句型。 别的副词并不用这样的倒装：我们不能说Occasionally has he addressed this question 或 To a slight degree have they changed their position 。 事实是象hardly 这样的副词语义上是否定的， 他们限定修饰了与不发生有关的状态或事件。于是hardly 的意思大概是“几乎根本不”； rarely 的意思大概是“实际上没有”；等等。 这些副词在他们的意思里留有否定的成分，语法学家们对hardly 和否定词组合的反应和对一对否定词如 not 和 none组合的反应一样是不足为奇的 参见 double negative,rarely,scarcely〔themed〕Their disapproval may stem from the inference that this adjectival participle must come from a verb "to theme,” rather than from the nountheme (as left-handed comes from the noun hand ). Although many common verbs, such as telephone, began their lives as nouns, there is often very strong resistance when a noun first begins to be used as a verb. There are indeed instances of theme being used as a verb, but they are relatively rare—a fact that seems to suit the Usage Panel. Ninety-two percent reject the sentence 他们不赞同的理由或许源自于此形容词themed应该自动词"to theme（设计主题）”而来，而不是从名词theme 而来（如 left-handed 源自名词 hand ）。虽然许多普通动词原本是名词，如 telephone ，但当名词开始当动词用时常会引起激烈反对。事实上像 theme 这样用作动词的例子相对较少——看来它较迎合用法专家小组。92%的小组成员反对此句型 〔syntax〕Such a pattern in a particular sentence or discourse.句型：一特定句或论述中的该种句式 |
| 随便看 |
|
学习网英语词汇栏目收词371507余条，连同派生词、复合词、词组和习语等。每个词条提供了音标、词性、释义、用法、搭配和同（近）义词等多项功能，对所收词汇进行全方位的解释和说明，内容丰富，功能全面。