[steveyou高分提问]请帮
1) 同意楼上的看法,不多说。
2)有不同看法,如下:
如按楼上所说,The court order (主)/ was (谓)the discovery(宾),显然句子意思不通。
我觉得句子的主干是: The court order (主)followed (谓语) what(宾语),what既是followed的宾语,也是从句what was the discovery的主语,而从句what was the discovery又是said的宾语。 what后面可以补充一个关系代词that, what that Qualcomm said was the discovery,这样就更清...全部
1) 同意楼上的看法,不多说。
2)有不同看法,如下:
如按楼上所说,The court order (主)/ was (谓)the discovery(宾),显然句子意思不通。
我觉得句子的主干是: The court order (主)followed (谓语) what(宾语),what既是followed的宾语,也是从句what was the discovery的主语,而从句what was the discovery又是said的宾语。
what后面可以补充一个关系代词that, what that Qualcomm said was the discovery,这样就更清楚,但是这个that是可以省略的。
此外,"in prior to unveiling its own WCDMA products "是介词词组,它后面的“in”,才是词组"engaged in"中的in。
The court order(主语) followed(谓语)what(宾语) Qualcomm said was the discovery(修饰what的定语从句)/ that(引导从句作discovery的同位语) Broadcom engaged /in prior to unveiling its own WCDMA products (介词词组)/"in a successful multi-year effort to improperly acquire thousands of pages of Qualcomm confidential business and technical information" related to the San Diego-based company's own WCDMA product development。
3) far narrower in scope 指the preliminary injunction 所牵涉或禁止的范围比。。。。小得多。 。收起