[問題] be connected with or by the blood??
|
- UID
- 11283
- 帖子
- 3468
- 精華
- 17
- 積分
- 88117
- 金幣
- 56433
- 威望
- 570
- 推廣
- 0
- 閱讀權限
- 88
- 在線時間
- 109 小時
- 註冊時間
- 2009-11-6
                
|
1樓
發表於 2010-1-25 15:33
| 只看該作者
[問題] be connected with or by the blood??
be connected with or by the blood??
All things on the earth are connected, just as every part of our body
is connected ______ our blood.
(A) from (B) with (C) in (D)by
This is a test question I came across the other day. I don't know
which I should choose, with or by?
Please help me to solve it. Many thanks.
這是我在AUE的提問，收到以下幾個回應，給大家參考，並請提供看法。
(1)
That is certainly a problematic situation, but since blood as a communication medium links all parts of the body, I would say "with". And again, in the metaphorical sense posed in the question, I would say "with" suits better than "by".
We are connected to our ancestors by blood lines, too. So again, "with" (B).
Let us know if you ever find out what the constructor of the test thinks is correct. Sometimes it helps to know a culture or a mindset to figure out what the tester wants, and even the tester doesn't realize how ambiguous the question or the selection of answers is.
(2)
"By".
Things are connected with one another *by* some other thing. The first
part of the analogy refers to all the things on Earth being connected;
that means connected to one another, since nothing else is mentioned or
implied. Thus, the second half of the analogy wants, for parallelism,
the idea of the parts of our body being connected with one another,
calling for "by", since the fact that they are each connected "with" the
bloodstream only means that they are connected with the substance *by*
which they are connected to one another.
(3)
一位美國朋友對(2) 的回應
I like this analysis; I think it gets to the heart of the matter much more concisely than my analysis did.
The only thing missing, I think, is the fact that "with" can be used instrumentally, just like "by". However, even that is not really an omission, for I think that the default usage of "with" is reference to things that are connected to each other, and only if the context makes the instrumental meaning clear can "with" be used to described the means by which things are connected.
And I agree with your source that it is asking a lot of the test-taker to decipher the analogy, especially as I don't think it is a very good one. I realize due to your source's analysis more clearly why I don't think it is a good analogy. In the reference to the earth the writer does not give the means by which all things on earth are connected; why, then, give the means in the reference to the body? The simile would have been, I think, much stronger had it read "All things on earth are connected, just as all parts of the body are connected." After all, some parts of the body are connected by ligament and nerve fibers and muscle tissue rather than (or in addition to) by blood. But my preferred version does not allow the writer to introduce the choice he wants to test. He could solve that by writing "All things on earth are connected <from/with/in/by> _____________, just as every part of our body is connected <from/with/in/by> our blood." But what would he put in the blank?
(4)
Grammatically, "by" is the only choice that retains the parallelism with
the part before the comma; but it's anatomically incorrect. To
answer this, you need to know whether the person setting the test
was more ignorant about language or about human biology.
這個題目出現在某本四技二專的講義，台灣的老師的解法可能比較單純（不知是否正確？）：
be + p.p. + by + 行為者
be + p.p. + with + 工具
這題一般老師可能會解 with ，因為 blood 不是 connect 的行為者，而是用來connect every part
的工具。
台灣英語網 2.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
