大家晚安,剛剛讀雜誌時,遇到幾句參透不出理路的語句,煩請高手解惑,謝謝~~
(1) In the south part of the park sits the new Olympic stadium. Built for sustainability, it contains less steel and concrete than most buildings its size, and its upper ring is made of surplus gas pipes.

Q1. 第一句【In the south part of the park sits the new Olympic stadium.】為什麼不寫成【The new Olympic stadium sits in the south part of the park.】,以語法解構和語意表述來說,應該是【新體育館座落於園區南方】比較通順吧??

Q2. 第二句【Built for sustainability, it contains less steel and concrete than most buildings its size, and its upper ring is made of surplus gas pipes.】,其中的【most buildings its size】是【most buildings which are as big as its size】的意思嗎?? 直接把【most buildings 】跟【its size】兩個具名詞地位的詞語連接在一起,且其中沒有連接詞、標點符號,這樣OK嗎???



(2) When some hear the word "Bedouin," they may think of mysterious desert nomads. Not long ago, this would have been correct.

Q1. 【this would have been correct.】要怎麼理解【would+完成式】這個時態的概念?? 寫成A【was correct】跟B【had been correct】不行嗎?? 就我自己的理解,作者應該是想說【在不久以前,這樣(去理解Bedouin)是正確的】,所以代表有一段時間,或者從古到過去的某一個時間點,這樣理解貝都因的方式是正確的。若是如此,為何不用過去完成式或者過去簡單式去描述??

以上,感謝各位幫我解惑><