Re:문법 질문입니다.

[심두선]

“THE forces pulling China toward integration and openness are more powerful today than ever before,” said President Bill Clinton in 1999. China then, though battered by the Asian financial crisis, was busy dismantling state-owned enterprises and pushing for admission to the World Trade Organisation. Today, however, those forces look much weaker.  

A spate of recent events, from the heavy jail sentences passed on human-rights activists to an undiplomatic obduracy at the climate-change negotiations in Copenhagen last December, invite questions about the thinking of China’s leaders. Has their view of the outside world and dissent at home changed? Or were the forces detected by Mr Clinton and so many others after all not pulling so hard in the direction they were expecting?

[질문] 위의 밑줄친 문장이 정확하게 해석이 되지 않습니다.. 토론중에 두 가지 의견이 있었는데,,, 하나는 and 뒤에 동사 were 가 생략되었다는 의견이 있었고, 다른 의견은 and 가 바로 앞의 Mr Clinton 과 바로뒤에 오는 so many others 를 연결해주고 뒤에는 so many others 수식하는 것으로 보았습니다. 이 점으로 인해 정확한 해석이 어려웠습니다. and가 연결해주는 것과 not pulling so hard가 의미하는 뜻이 무엇인가요?

[답변] “The forces detected by Mr. Clinton and so many others”은 “the forces pulling China toward integration and openness”을 의미하는 것이고, “after all” 은 “in the end, now that we’ve seen events unfold”를 뜻합니다. “Not pulling so hard in the direction they were expecting”은 the “forces”의 술부가 되어 the forces are not that strong and even if they are strong, they are not pulling China toward “integration and openness”를 암시하는데 결국 이것이 Mr. Clinton and others (=“they” in the phrase “they were expecting”)의 기대에 반한다는 것입니다. 요컨대, 이 문장은 아래와 같은 암시를 준다고 할 수 있습니다.

So this sentence asks if the forces for integration and openness are less powerful than Mr. Clinton and others expected.

But Andrew Nathan of Columbia University in New York does not see this as a challenge to the expected shoo-in for Xi Jinping, the vice-president, as China’s next leader, despite Mr Xi’s failure last year to garner the leading military post analysts thought would form part of his grooming. Li Keqiang, a deputy prime minister, still looks set to take over from Mr Wen in 2013

[질문] 위의 밑줄 친 문장에서 would 의 주어가 무엇인지 잘 모르겠습니다.

[답변] “would”의 주어는 “the leading military post”로써 analysts thought 앞에 주격 관계대명사 which/that이 생략되었다고 보면 이해가 쉽게 되실 것입니다. 즉, “analysts thought that the leading military post would form part of Xi Jinping’s grooming to take over as China’s next top leader”의 뜻이 되는 것입니다. 이처럼 삽입절 앞에 쓰인 주격 관계대명사는 흔히 생략되어 쓰입니다. 예를 들어보겠습니다.

Mother’s decision to purchase the black vase Annie thought would look nice in the dining room was met with fury by Lisa, who had an unreasonable attachment to the blue vase.

이 문장은 주격 관계대명사가 생략된 것으로 다음 두 문장의 결합으로 설명할 수 있습니다. 1) Mother’s decision to purchase the black vase was met with fury by Lisa, who had an unreasonable attachment to the blue vase. 2) Annie thought the black vase would look nice in the dining room.

[Statesman]

답변에 감사드립니다.

[사커천사]

와우~~ 감사드립니다~~^^