Please help me, is this a wrong sentence? (English sentence)
There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.

Can't understand what it's saying....
Please help.

Question

Please help me, is this a wrong sentence? (English sentence)
There is evidence that the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.

Can't understand what it's saying....
Please help.

Answer

The author is saying:

There were cost-cutting measures put in place (instituted).
Then after that there were oil spills, and some of the oil spills were more damaging than others.
If it weren't for the cost-cutting measures, the most damaging oil spills would not have happened (i.e. they would have been prevented.)

In other words, the author is saying that the cost-cutting measures caused the most damaging of the recent oil spills.

Answer

由于你是中国人，所以我按照原文顺序用中文详细讲解，即对原文英语句子结构进行分析:
首先进行主要整体句子的分析:
There is evidence 
讲解:这是主句，用一般现在时对过去的动作或者状态进行描述。这就是所谓的是"历史现在时。并非表示现在(is)的存在的"证据或者迹象"。
that 后面全是表示evidence的同位语从句，表示evidence的内容，其中，the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented 
是一个句子结构，表示主句从句在整个that同位语从句中做主语。而"had cost-cutting measures not been instituted"才是同位语从句的真正谓语。

细节讲解:

the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented (这是一个完整句子结构，意思是"最近石油泄露造成的大部分损坏没有被阻止"，但是要仔细看这个句子的语气用了would  +过去完成时，形式上是过去将来完成时态(的被动语态)，但是逻辑上不通，因此是实质是表示过去的虚拟语气过去时，虚拟语气句子结构，暗示"the most damaging(大部分的这种 "损失或者破坏"本该在过去那个时间被阻止，但是却没有被阻止。
上面说道，这儿所谓的"完整句子"句子其实是从句的主语。我们不妨把主语从句当做一个大名词M来理解， 于是原文的that从句结构就是:
"M had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.
在这个句子中，用了have的多去式had,假如是现在时态，这种结构就是"have+ something +过去分词(done)" 结构(过去分词用了否定形式)，意思是"(某事)被别人完成。例如，Tom had his hair cut(这儿的cut是动词原形cut的过去分词)，意思是"Tom使他的头发被"别人)理了。即"Tom理发了"的意思。
。因此:
M had cost-cutting measures not been instituted.
意思是: M使成本消减措施没有被实行，即:最近石油泄露造成的大部分损坏没有被阻止(本来该阻止但却没有阻止))"这个事实，使成本消减措施没有被执行。换言之，就是由于石油泄露的损失太大了，所以才造成石油成本削价成为不可能。
  刚刚看到第二个老外的解释，突然明白我把句子结构看错误才造成对原文的误解，和对老外解释的误解，很抱歉，原文结构很简单，但是我把之看的过于"复杂"因此我是错误的。
纠正:" had cost-cutting measures not been instituted."是一个倒装虚拟语气的条件句 = if cost-cutting measures had not been instituted. (虚拟语气的过去条件句: if + 主语 + had + 过去分词，这儿是否定句式 )， 意思是，如果成分削减没有被建立(的话)，或，如果不建立成本削减(的话)。the most damaging of the recent oil spills would have been prevented (石油泄露的大部分破坏就会被阻止)才是同位语从句的主句。
但是，必须指出由于句子结构的出现的可能合理的歧义结构，我的原本理解也相当有其道理，例如，英语句子"He beat the dog with a stick" 如果没有上下文都语境，意思可能有两种:
主要意思是: 他用一根棍子打那条狗，
但是由于with a stick 也可能是介词短语做定语修饰紧挨着的名词dog，因此意思可能也是: 他打了那条带棍棒的狗。(狗本身自己带走棍棒"可能捆绑在它身上)。
但尽管不合乎正常逻辑，但是确实句子结构可以拥有这种意思的可能(见英语句子结构的歧义性)。

Answer

Hi Frederick,  this sentence is correct, it means that because cost-cutting measures were taken that caused oil spills.  In other words by cutting costs, safety was compromised and more damaging oil spills occurred.  The reason you are finding this sentence confusing is the way it is constructed with negative following positive - so "would have been prevented" is balanced and contradicted by "(if) cost cutting measures HAD NOT BEEN instituted".  A more straightforward construction would be to say "If cost cutting measures HAD NOT BEEN instituted the most damaging of the recent oil spills WOULD HAVE BEEN prevented".  The way the sentence is constructed means that "IF" is left out but understood.  Hope this helps,

Answers · 4

Still haven’t found your answers?

Don’t miss out on the opportunity to learn a language from the comfort of your own home. Browse our selection of experienced language tutors and enroll in your first lesson now!