问答题

The grammatical words which play so large a part in English grammar are for the most part sharply and obviously different from the lexical words. A rough and ready difference which may seem the most obvious is that grammatical words (1)______ have "less meaning", but in fact some grammarians have (2)______ called them "empty" words as opposed in the "full" words of  (3)______ vocabulary. But this is a rather misled way of expressing the (4)______ distinction. Although a word like the is not the name of something as man is, it is very far away from being meaningless; (5)______ there is a sharp difference in meaning between "man is vile" and "the man is vile", yet the is the single vehicle of this    (6)______ difference in meaning. Moreover, grammatical words differ considerably among themselves as the amount of meaning they     (7)______ have, even in the lexical sense. Another name for the grammatical words has been "little words." But size is by no mean   (8)______ a good criterion for distinguishing the grammatical words of English, when we consider that we have lexical words as go,    (9)______ man, say, car. Apart from this, however, there is a good deal of truth in what some people say: we certainly do create a  great number of obscurity when we omit them. This is illustrated (10)______ not only in the poetry of Robert Browing but in the prose of telegrams and newspaper headlines.

【参考答案】

将misled改成misleading。misled为mislead的过去分词形式,表示"被误入歧途的"、"被误导的"。......

(↓↓↓ 点击下方‘点击查看答案’看完整答案 ↓↓↓)
热门 试题

问答题
In some societies people want children for what might be called familial reasons: to extend the family line or the family name, to propitiate the ancestors; to enable the proper functioning of religious rituals involving the family. Such reasons may seem thin in the modern, secularized society but they have been and are powerful indeed in other places.In addition, one class of family reasons shares a border with the following category, namely, having children in order to maintain or improve a marriage; to hold the husband or occupy the wife; to repair or rejuvenate the marriage; to increase the number of children on the assumption that family happiness lies that way. The point is underlined by its converse: in some societies the failure to bear children (or males) is a threat to the marriage and a ready cause for divorce.Beyond all that is the profound significance of children to the very institution of the family itself. To many people, husband and wife alone do not seem a proper family ― they need children to enrich the circle,to validate its family character, to gather the redemptive influence of offspring. Children need the family, but the family seems also to need children, as the social institutions uniquely available, at least in principle, for security, comfort, assurance, and direction in a changing, often hostile world. To most people, such a home base, in the literal sense, needs more than one. person for sustenance and in generational extension.