词根速记单词DAY96：-pend- 悬挂

大家好，欢迎来到IT知识分享网。

-pend- = -pens-

悬挂，称量， 花费

depend [dɪ’pend] vi. 依赖，依靠；取决于；相信，信赖

拆分：de- 向下 + -pend 悬挂 → 向下悬挂 → 依赖

例句：

The cooking time needed depends on the size of the potato.
烹饪时间长短取决于土豆的大小。

拓展：

dependant [dɪ’pend(ə)nt] n. 家眷；侍从；食客

dependent [di’pendənt] adj. 依靠的；从属的；取决于…的 n. 依赖他人者；受赡养者

dependence [di’pendəns] n. 依赖；依靠；信任；信赖

dependency [di’pendənsi] n. 属国；从属；从属物

dependable [di’pendəbl] adj. 可靠的，可信赖的；可信任的

dependably [dɪ’pɛndəbli] adv. 值得信任地

undependable [ʌndɪ’pendəb(ə)l] adj. 靠不住的，不可靠的

dependability [dɪ,pendə’bɪlətɪ] n. 可靠性；可信任

independent [,ɪndɪ’pendənt] adj. 独立的；单独的；无党派的；不受约束的n. 独立自主者；无党派者

拆分：in- 否定 + -dependent 依赖的 → 不依赖的 → 独立的

例句：

Your questions should be independent of each other.
你们的问题应该是相互间毫无关联的。

拓展：

independently [,ɪndɪ’pend(ə)ntlɪ] adv. 独立地；自立地

independence [ɪndɪ’pend(ə)ns] n. 独立性，自立性；自主

independency [,indi’pendənsi] n. 独立；组合教会制；独立

国

interdepend [,intədi’pend] vi. 互相依赖

interdependence [,intədi’pendəns] n. 互相依赖

suspend [sə’spend] vt. 延缓，推迟；使暂停；使悬浮 vi. 悬浮；禁赛

拆分：sus- 下一级 + -pend 悬挂 → 向下一级悬挂 → 推迟

例句：

The union suspended strike action this week.
工会本周暂停了罢工行动。

拓展：

suspense [sə’spens] n. 悬念；焦虑；兴奋

suspension [sə’spenʃən] n. 悬挂，悬而不决，中止，暂停

suspensive [sə’spensiv] adj. 暂停的；悬而不决的；可疑的；暧昧的

suspended [sə’spendid] adj. 悬浮的；暂停的，缓期的（宣判）

suspenders [sə’spɛndɚz] n. 吊裤带；裤子背带

suspenseful [sə’spɛnsfəl] adj. 悬疑的；令人紧张的；焦急不安的

append [ə’pend] vt. 附加；贴上；盖章 n. 设置数据文件的搜索路径

拆分：ap- 趋近 + -pend 悬挂 → 趋近去悬挂 → 附加/贴上

例句：

She appended a note at the end of the letter.
她在信件尾部附加了一个说明。

拓展：

appendage [ə’pendɪdʒ] n. 附加物；下属；[动][解剖] 附器（如植物的枝叶和动物的腿尾）

appendix [ə’pendɪks] n. 附录；阑尾；附加物

appendicitis [ə,pendɪ’saɪtɪs] n. [医] 阑尾炎；盲肠炎

appendectomy [,æp(ə)n’dektəmɪ] n. [外科] 阑尾切除术

dispense [dis’pens] vt. 分配，分发；免除；执行 vi. 免除，豁免

拆分：dis- 分离 + -pens 悬挂 + -e 动词后缀 → 分开悬挂 → 分配

例句：

The union had already dispensed $60000 in grants.
工会已经分发了6万美元的补助金。

拓展：

dispenser [dis’pensə] n. 分配者，施与者，配药者，药剂师，分配器，配出器，自动售货机

dispensary [dis’pensəri] n. 药房；（学校、兵营或工厂的）诊疗所；防治站

dispensation [,dispen’seiʃən] n. 分配；免除；豁免；天命

dispensing [dɪ’spɛns] n. 配药；调剂

dispensable [dɪs’pensəbl] adj. 可有可无的；非必要的

indispensable [ɪndɪ’spensəb(ə)l] adj. 不可缺少的；绝对必要的；责无旁贷的n. 不可缺少之物；必不可少的人

expend [ik’spend] vt. 花费；消耗；用光；耗尽

拆分：ex- 向外 + -pend 悬挂/称重/支付 → 向外支付出去 → 用光

例句：

Children expend a lot of energy and may need more high-energy food than adults.
孩子们耗能多，可能比成人需要更多高能量的食物。

拓展：

expended [ɪk’spɛnd] adj. 花费的；支出的；开支的

expendable [ik’spendəbl] adj. 可消费的；排出的；不重复使用的；可牺牲的 n. 消耗品

expenditure [iks’penditʃə] n. 支出，花费；经费，消费额

expense [ɪk’spens] n. 损失，代价；消费；开支 vt. 向…收取费用 vi.被花掉

expensive [ik’spensiv] adj. 花费的，花钱多的，昂贵的

expensively [iks’pensivli] adv. 昂贵地；乱花钱地

inexpensive [ɪnɪk’spensɪv] adj. 便宜的

inexpensively [,inik’spensivli] adv. 廉价地，不践地；花费不多地

spend [spend] vt. 度过，消磨（时光）；花费；浪费；用尽 vi. 花钱；用尽，耗尽 n. 预算

拆分：s- 向外 + -pend 悬挂/称重/支付 → 支付出去 → 花费

例句：

By the end of the holiday I had spent all my money.
到那个假期结束时我已经花光了我所有的钱。

拓展：

spending [‘spendɪŋ] n. 花费；开销

spender [‘spendə] n. 挥金如土的人；挥霍者；用钱的人

outspend [aʊt’spend] vt. 开支比…更大

overspend [əʊvə’spend] vt. 超支；过度使用；花费过多 vi. 超支，花钱过多

misspend [mɪs’spend] vt. 浪费；滥用（时间、金钱等）

spendthrift [‘spen(d)θrɪft] adj. 挥霍无度的；浪费的 n. 挥霍无度的人；浪费的人

impend [im’pend] vi. 即将发生，即将来临，逼近

拆分：im- 向内 + -pend 悬挂 → 向内悬挂起来，挂的很近 → 即将发生

例句：

Crucial events impend in Europe.

欧洲即将发生具有决定意义的事变。

拓展：

impending [im’pendiŋ] 即将来临的，迫近的

impendent [im’pendənt] 悬挂的，即将发生的，逼近的

pension [‘penʃ(ə)n] n. 退休金，抚恤金；津贴；膳宿费 vt. 发给养老金或抚恤金

拆分：pens- 支付 + -ion 名词后缀 → 支付 → 退休金

例句：

…struggling by on a pension.
…靠养老金艰难度日。

拓展：

pensioner [‘penʃənə] n. 领养老金者；领取抚恤金者

compensate [‘kɒmpenseɪt] vi. 补偿，赔偿；抵消 vt. 补偿，赔偿；付报酬

拆分：com- 一起/完全 + -pens 支付 + -ate 动词后缀 → 完全支付完 → 抵消/赔偿

例句：

The damages are designed to compensate victims for their direct losses.
该赔偿金是用来补偿受害人的直接损失的。

拓展：

compensation [kɒmpen’seɪʃ(ə)n] n. 补偿；报酬；赔偿金

compensator [‘kɒmpənseɪtə] n. [电][自] 补偿器；自耦变压器；

compensatory [kɒmpen’seɪtərɪ] adj. 补偿的，赔偿的

compensating [‘kɑmpən,set] n. 补偿；修正；抵销 adj. 补偿的

uncompensated [ʌn’kɑmpən,setɪd] adj. 未得补偿的；无报酬的

compendium [kəm’pendɪəm] n. 纲要；概略

compensable [kəm’pensəb(ə)l] adj. 可补偿的；应予以补偿的

recompense [‘rekəmpens] vt. 赔偿；酬谢 vi. 赔偿 n. 赔偿；报酬

pensive [‘pensiv] adj. 沉思的，忧郁的；悲伤的，哀愁的

拆分：pens- 悬挂 + -ive 形容词后缀 → 悬挂在心头的，萦绕在心头 → 忧郁的

例句：

He looked suddenly sombre, pensive.
他突然看起来很阴郁，一副忧虑的样子。

拓展：

pensively [‘pɛnsɪvli] adv. 焦虑地；沉思地

pendent [‘pendənt] adj. 悬而未决的；下垂的；未定的；向外伸出的

拆分：pend- 悬挂 + -ent 形容词后缀 → 挂起来的 → 悬而未决的

例句：

Because commercial pattern is pendent, all jobs backwater not before.

由于商业模式悬而未决，所有的工作都停滞不前。

拓展：

pendency [‘pendənsɪ] n. 悬垂；悬而未决

pendant [‘pend(ə)nt] n. 挂饰，垂饰

pending [‘pendiŋ] prep. 在…期间；直到…时为止；在等待…之际adj. 未决定的；行将发生的

pendulum [‘pendjʊləm] n. 钟摆；摇锤；摇摆不定的事态

pendulous [‘pendjʊləs] adj. 下垂的，悬垂的；摇摆的

penalty [‘pen(ə)ltɪ] n. 罚款，罚金；处罚

propensity [prə’pensɪtɪ] n. 倾向，习性；癖好，偏爱

despondently [di’spɔndəntli] adv. 意志消沉地；沮丧地

stipend [‘staɪpend] n. 奖学金；固定薪金；定期津贴；养老金

参考资源：

《三万八词汇——宋维刚》、《词根词缀词典》、《有道词典》

背单词真理：

不断重复大量单词，直到熟悉每个词。坚持是最重要的！

词根背单词：

适合于有一定英语基础的人，按照含有相同关键词根的词汇顺序去记忆单词，会比杂乱无章更有效果，适合各种考试党（中考、高考、考研、雅思、托福等）和上班族（相关专业词汇就得要靠平时重复积累咯）。

词汇专题：

每天在公众号分享一个词根，偶尔断更请原谅哈！每天接触新的单词，同时复习旧的，放在公众号上，方便自己记忆。

今日份学习结束，你记住了吗(*^__^*)

前期回顾：词根速记单词DAY95：-fin-终结 -fan- 幻影

以下为经济学人原文分享，无翻译~

PLANET EARTH is shutting down. In the struggle to get a grip on covid-19, one country after another is demanding that its citizens shun society. As that sends economies reeling, desperate governments are trying to tide over companies and consumers by handing out trillions of dollars in aid and loan guarantees. Nobody can be sure how well these rescues will work.

But there is worse. Troubling new findings suggest that stopping the pandemic might require repeated shutdowns. And yet it is also now clear that such a strategy would condemn the world economy to grave—perhaps intolerable—harm. Some very hard choices lie ahead.

Barely 12 weeks after the first reports of people mysteriously falling ill in Wuhan, in central China, the world is beginning to grasp the pandemic’s true human and economic toll. As of March 18th SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind covid-19, had registered 134,000 infections outside China in 155 countries and territories. In just seven days that is an increase of almost 90,000 cases and 43 countries and territories. The real number of cases is thought to be at least an order of magnitude greater.

Spooked, governments are rushing to impose controls that would have been unimaginable only a few weeks ago. Scores of countries, including many in Africa and Latin America, have barred travellers from places where the virus is rife. Times Square is deserted, the City of London is dark and in France, Italy and Spain cafés, bars and restaurants have bolted their doors. Everywhere empty stadiums echo to absent crowds.

It has become clear that the economy is taking a much worse battering than analysts had expected (see Briefing). Data for January and February show that industrial output in China, which had been forecast to fall by 3% compared with a year earlier, was down by 13.5%. Retail sales were not 4% lower, but 20.5%. Fixed-asset investment, which measures the spending on such things as machinery and infrastructure, declined by 24%, six times more than predicted. That has sent economic forecasters the world over scurrying to revise down their predictions. Faced with the most brutal recession in living memory, governments are setting out rescue packages on a scale that exceeds even the financial crisis of 2007-09 (see leader).

This is the backdrop for fundamental choices about how to manage the disease. Using an epidemiological model, a group from Imperial College in London this week set out a framework to help policymakers think about what lies ahead. It is bleak.

One approach is mitigation, “flattening the curve” to make the pandemic less intense by, say, isolating cases and quarantining infected households. The other is to suppress it with a broader range of measures, including shutting in everybody, other than those who cannot work from home, and closing schools and universities. Mitigation curbs the pandemic, suppression aims to stop it in its tracks.

The modellers found that, were the virus left to spread, it would cause around 2.2m deaths in America and 500,000 in Britain by the end of summer. In advanced economies, they concluded, three months of curve-flattening, including two-week quarantines of infected households, would at best prevent only about half of these. Moreover, peak demand for intensive care would still be eight times the surge capacity of Britain’s National Health Service, leading to many more deaths that the model did not attempt to compute. If that pattern holds in other parts of Europe, even its best-resourced health systems, including Germany’s, would be overwhelmed.

No wonder governments are opting for the more stringent controls needed to suppress the pandemic. Suppression has the advantage that it has worked in China. On March 18th Italy added 4,207 new cases whereas Wuhan counted none at all. China has recorded a total of just over 80,000 cases in a population of 1.4bn people. For comparison, the Imperial group estimated that the virus left to itself would infect more than 80% of the population in Britain and America.

But that is why suppression has a sting in its tail. By keeping infection rates relatively low, it leaves many people susceptible to the virus. And since covid-19 is now so widespread, within countries and around the world, the Imperial model suggests that epidemics would return within a few weeks of the restrictions being lifted. To avoid this, countries must suppress the disease each time it resurfaces, spending at least half their time in lockdown. This on-off cycle must be repeated until either the disease has worked through the population or there is a vaccine which could be months away, if one works at all.

This is just a model, and models are just educated guesses based on the best evidence. Hence the importance of watching China to see if life there can return to normal without the disease breaking out again. The hope is that teams of epidemiologists can test on a massive scale so as to catch new cases early, trace their contacts and quarantine them without turning society upside down. Perhaps they will be helped by new drugs, such as a Japanese antiviral compound which China this week said was promising.

But this is just a hope, and hope is not a policy. The bitter truth is that mitigation costs too many lives and suppression may be economically unsustainable. After a few iterations governments might not have the capacity to carry businesses and consumers. Ordinary people might not tolerate the upheaval. The cost of repeated isolation, measured by mental well-being and the long-term health of the rest of the population, might not justify it.

In the real world there are trade-offs between the two strategies, though governments can make both more efficient. South Korea, China and Italy have shown that this starts with mass-testing. The more clearly you can identify who has the disease, the less you must depend upon indiscriminate restrictions. Tests for antibodies to the virus, picking up who has been infected and recovered, are needed to supplement today’s which are only valid just before and during the illness (see article). That will let immune people go about their business in the knowledge that they cannot be a source of further infections.

A second line of attack is to use technology to administer quarantines and social distancing. China is using apps to certify who is clear of the disease and who is not. Both it and South Korea are using big data and social media to trace infections, alert people to hotspots and round up contacts. South Korea changed the law to allow the state to gain access to medical records and share them without a warrant. In normal times many democracies might find that too intrusive. Times are not normal.

Last, governments should invest in health care, even if their efforts take months to bear fruit and may never be needed. They should increase the surge capacity of intensive care. Countries like Britain and America are desperately short of beds, specialists and ventilators. They should define the best treatment protocols, develop vaccines and test new therapeutic drugs. All this would make mitigation less lethal and suppression cheaper.

Be under no illusions. Such measures might still not prevent the pandemic from extracting a heavy toll. Today governments seem to be committed to suppression, whatever the cost. But if the disease is not conquered quickly, they will edge towards mitigation, even if that will result in many more deaths. Understandably, just now that is not a trade-off any government is willing to contemplate. They may soon have no choice.