尝试在一页或两页中打印此表格。请帮忙。
\documentclass{article}
%\usepackage[margin=2in]{geometry} %use this later of you need tp specfy margin
%\usepackage{microtype} % might not be helpful
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{comment}
\excludecomment{comment}
%\includecomment{comment}
\usepackage{graphicx} % for grapghics
\usepackage{caption} % Enable figure captions or figure notes
\usepackage{subcaption} %Further enable subcaptions
\usepackage{booktabs} %for table
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{amsmath} %for equations and mathematical symbols
\usepackage{rotating} %for table rotation
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{float} % allow tables to self adjust
\usepackage{morefloats}
%\usepackage{booktabs,caption,fixltx2e}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{hyperref} % allow hyper referencing
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage{amssymb} % for mathmatical symbols
\usepackage{enumerate} % to get all that enumeration offers
\usepackage{xcolor} % for font coloring
\captionsetup{font=footnotesize}
\usepackage[round]{natbib}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\begin{document}
\begin{sidewaystable}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Empirical Analysis comparing DY, GHD, SVS}
\label{tab1}
\begin{adjustbox}{width=1\textwidth}
\large
\begin{tabular}{@{}llll@{}}
\toprule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Transmission} \\ \midrule
\multicolumn{1}{c}{Blocks} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{DY} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{GHD} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{GHD-SVD} \\
\multirow{5}{*}{AC} & 1. Transmission mounts for India, Singapore and Thailand facing GFC. & 1. Patterns accord well with DY results for India, Singapore and Thailand during 2006-2008 GFC period. & \multirow{5}{*}{Transmissions in the AC cluster evince effects of contagion swaying the markets.} \\
& 2. South Korean transmissions amplify during 2002-2004, when then global economy was riddled with many crises. & 2. As opposed to DY depiction, South Korean transmission bears negetive sign suggesting, dampening of transmission is dominant during 2002-2004. & \\
& 3. Malaysia and the Philippines markets demonstrates neutral to dampening transmissions all around. & \multirow{2}{*}{3. The Phillipines and South Korea portrays negetive transmissions , with the only exception during the GFC event. This supports DY argument.} & \\
& 4. Inclusion of oil and commodity indices amplifies transmission during crisis, only for India and South Korea. & & \\
& 5. Little amplification in transmission is observed for all participants facincg GFC. & 4. Positive transmissions are plotted for all markets during GFC, similar to the DY observations. & \\
EC & 1. We find a resurgance in transmission for Germany during 2002-2004 similar to that of South Korea mentioned earlier. & 1. Again, with Germany we find negetive transmissions across 2002-2004, rejecting DY depiction. & \multirow{2}{*}{1. Results remain consistent with GHD, with contagion prevailing for Germany, France, UK markets.} \\
\multirow{3}{*}{} & 2. France and UK transmissions amplify in the advent of Eurozone crisis, while remaining neutral in th earlier crises. & 2. Consistent with DY, GHD shows positive transmission across Eurozone crisis, precedeed by a negetive dampening during GFC for both France and UK. & \\
& 3. Australian transmissions slightly amplify during GFC and during Export crisis. Dampenings prevails in the transitions between crises. & 3. GHD is consistent with DY for Australia & \multirow{2}{*}{2. Short-lived volatility rises profoundly for Australia and China corresponding to major events. This explains Australian and Chinese transmissions are driven predominantly .} \\
& 4. Chinese transmissions amplify mostly with the recent Chinese crisis. Earlier, Chinese transmissions amplified only during GFC. & 4. The findings are in accord with DY. & \\
\multirow{3}{*}{GC} & 1. Transmissions amplify for Greece, Portugal and Ireland with the Eurozone crisis /GC. Recently, Ireland transmissions ascend following a descend. & 1. Greek transmission evinces small surges in the positive direction, followed by strong negetive dampenings. & \multirow{3}{*}{Clustered volatility spawning out of high risk premia explains high transmissions with short-lived connections for Potugal and Belgium, mostly during GFC and not the Eurozone crisis period.} \\
& \multirow{2}{*}{2. Belgium shows escalating transmissions facing the recent export shrinkage.} & 2. Belgium transmissions remain neutral to dampening. Unlike DY, the postive and negetive estimates offset strong amplifications for Belgium. & \\
& & 3. As the Greek crisis unfolds, positive transmissions resurge for Croatia. This is not identified with DY. & \\
\multirow{4}{*}{OED} & 1. We find the strongest transmissions for the USA and Japan during dot comm bubble. studies in this tenet, is dismissed with GHD. & \multirow{4}{*}{Of all the markets presented in this block, high volatility in transmissions holds sway over Japan and New Zealand only. Crucially, this explains `conduit' transmissions for Japan, s are volatility driven simply due to its high susceptability to debeloped markets and oil shocks.} \\
& 2. Russian trasmissions amplify in all major events across the sample periods, leading to a phenomenal jump facing the recent Russian financial crisis of 2014-2015. Inclusion of oil and commodity indices slightly dampen the transmissions. & 2. Risk transmission from Russia remains strongly positive for the most part, with exceptions only during the advent of GFC and Russian Crisis 2014-2015. & \\
& 3. The transmissions for both Canada and Norway sharply descends corresponding to & 3. The patterns accord well with the DY findings for both Canada and Norway. Additionally, & \\
& 4. Gyrations in the transmissions of New Zealand do not show sharp occiliations. & 4. For the most part, the transmissions that New Zealand emit is near to its mean, t. & \\ \cmidrule(lr){2-3}
\end{tabular}
\end{adjustbox}
\end{sidewaystable}
\end{document}
答案1
该xltabular软件包存在一种可能性，它使 tabularx 可跨页面拆分。这需要更改sidewaystable环境landscape。
无关：使用最新版本的 LaTex，您无需再加载fixltx2e。此外，切勿adjustbox与表格一起使用：它会导致字体大小不一致，并且大多数情况下会使字体不可读。
\documentclass{article}
%\usepackage[margin=2in]{geometry} %use this later of you need tp specify margin
%\usepackage{microtype} % might not be helpful
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage{comment}
\excludecomment{comment}
%\includecomment{comment}
\usepackage{graphicx} % for graphics
\usepackage{caption} % Enable figure captions or figure notes
\usepackage{subcaption} %Further enable subcaptions
\usepackage{booktabs} %for table
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{amsmath} %for equations and mathematical symbols
\usepackage{rotating} %for table rotation
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{float} % allow tables to self adjust
\usepackage{morefloats}
\usepackage[flushleft]{threeparttable}
\usepackage{tabularx, xltabular}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage{amssymb} % for mathematical symbols
\usepackage{enumerate} % to get all that enumeration offers
\usepackage{xcolor} % for font coloring
\captionsetup{font=footnotesize}
\usepackage[round]{natbib}
\bibliographystyle{plainnat}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref} % allow hyper referencing
\begin{document}
\begin{landscape}%
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\begin{xltabular}{\linewidth}{@{}lXX>{\arraybackslash}X@{}}
\caption{Empirical Analysis comparing DY, GHD, SVS}
\label{tab1} \\
\toprule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Transmission} \\ \midrule
{Blocks} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{DY} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{GHD} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{GHD-SVD} \\[1ex]
{AC} & 1. Transmission mounts for India, Singapore and Thailand facing GFC. & 1. Patterns accord well with DY results for India, Singapore and Thailand during 2006-2008 GFC period. & \multirow{16}{=}{Transmissions in the AC cluster evince effects of contagion swaying the markets.} \\
& 2. South Korean transmissions amplify during 2002-2004, when then global economy was riddled with many crises. & 2. As opposed to DY depiction, South Korean transmission bears negative sign suggesting, dampening of transmission is dominant during 2002-2004. & \\
& 3. Malaysia and the Philippines markets demonstrates neutral to dampening transmissions all around. & \multirow{2}{=}{3. The Philippines and South Korea portrays negative transmissions , with the only exception during the GFC event. This supports DY argument.} & \\
& 4. Inclusion of oil and commodity indices amplifies transmission during crisis, only for India and South Korea. & & \\
& 5. Little amplification in transmission is observed for all participants facing GFC. & 4. Positive transmissions are plotted for all markets during GFC, similar to the DY observations. & \\
\addlinespace[2ex]
EC & 1. We find a resurgence in transmission for Germany during 2002-2004 similar to that of South Korea mentioned earlier. & 1. Again, with Germany we find negative transmissions across 2002-2004, rejecting DY depiction. & \multirow{2}{=}{1. Results remain consistent with GHD, with contagion prevailing for Germany, France, UK markets.} \\
& 2. France and UK transmissions amplify in the advent of Eurozone crisis, while remaining neutral in th earlier crises. & 2. Consistent with DY, GHD shows positive transmission across Eurozone crisis, preceded by a negative dampening during GFC for both France and UK. & \\
& 3. Australian transmissions slightly amplify during GFC and during Export crisis. Dampenings prevails in the transitions between crises. & 3. GHD is consistent with DY for Australia & \multirow{2} {=}{2. Short-lived volatility rises profoundly for Australia and China corresponding to major events. This explains Australian and Chinese transmissions are driven predominantly .} \\
& 4. Chinese transmissions amplify mostly with the recent Chinese crisis. Earlier, Chinese transmissions amplified only during GFC. & 4. The findings are in accord with DY. & \\
\addlinespace[2ex]
{GC} & 1. Transmissions amplify for Greece, Portugal and Ireland with the Eurozone crisis /GC. Recently, Ireland transmissions ascend following a descend. & 1. Greek transmission evinces small surges in the positive direction, followed by strong negative dampenings. & \multirow{3}{=}{Clustered volatility spawning out of high risk premia explains high transmissions with short-lived connections for Portugal and Belgium, mostly during GFC and not the Eurozone crisis period.} \\
& \multirow{2}{=}{2. Belgium shows escalating transmissions facing the recent export shrinkage.} & 2. Belgium transmissions remain neutral to dampening. Unlike DY, the positive and negative estimates offset strong amplifications for Belgium. & \\
& & 3. As the Greek crisis unfolds, positive transmissions resurge for Croatia. This is not identified with DY. & \\
%%
\addlinespace[2ex]
{OED} & 1. We find the strongest transmissions for the USA and Japan during dot comm bubble. studies in this tenet, is dismissed with GHD. &{Of all the markets presented in this block, high volatility in transmissions holds sway over Japan and New Zealand only. Crucially, this explains `conduit' transmissions for Japan, s are volatility driven simply due to its high susceptability to developed markets and oil shocks.} \\% \multirow{14}{=}
& 2. Russian transmissions amplify in all major events across the sample periods, leading to a phenomenal jump facing the recent Russian financial crisis of 2014-2015. Inclusion of oil and commodity indices slightly dampen the transmissions. & 2. Risk transmission from Russia remains strongly positive for the most part, with exceptions only during the advent of GFC and Russian Crisis 2014-2015. & \\
& 3. The transmissions for both Canada and Norway sharply descends corresponding to & 3. The patterns accord well with the DY findings for both Canada and Norway. Additionally, & \\
& 4. Gyrations in the transmissions of New Zealand do not show sharp oscillations. & 4. For the most part, the transmissions that New Zealand emit is near to its mean, t. & \\ \cmidrule(lr){2-3}
\end{xltabular}
\end{landscape}
\end{document}
答案2
我找到了一个与 Bernard 的解决方案非常相似但采用不同方法的解决方案。
我将enumerate环境包含在longtable单元格内，这样您就不必浪费时间编号了。同样，我旋转了页面而不是表格。
由于您的代码非常广泛且布局奇怪，我没有复制全部内容，只是复制了一部分，所以您可以有一个想法并自己进行调整。
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{booktabs} %for table
\usepackage{multirow}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{pdflscape} %turn the page
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\setlist[enumerate]{leftmargin=*,}
\setlist{nosep,before=\vspace{-\baselineskip}}
\begin{document}
\begin{landscape}
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\begin{longtable}{cp{7.5cm}p{7.5cm}p{7.5cm}}
%\begin{tabularx}{23cm}{m{2em}m{7cm}m{7cm}X}
\toprule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Transmission} \\
\midrule
Blocks &\centering DY & \centering GHD & \multicolumn{1}{c}{GHD-SVD} \\ %both solutions works
\midrule
{AC} & \begin{enumerate}\item Transmission mounts for India, Singapore and Thailand facing GFC.
\item South Korean transmissions amplify during 2002-2004, when then global economy was riddled with many crises.
\item Malaysia and the Philippines markets demonstrates neutral to dampening transmissions all around.
\item Inclusion of oil and commodity indices amplies transmission during crisis, only for India and South Korea.
\item Little amplication in transmission is observed for all participants facincg GFC.
\end{enumerate}
&
\begin{enumerate}
\item Patterns accord well with DY results for India, Singapore and Thailand during 2006-2008 GFC period.
\item As opposed to DY depiction, South Korean transmission bears negetive sign suggesting, dampening of transmission is dominant during 2002-2004.
\end{enumerate}
&
\medskip %cheating
Transmissions in the AC cluster evince effects of contagion swaying the markets.
\\
\midrule
EC & \begin{enumerate}
\item The rest of your text.
\item The rest of your text.
\end{enumerate} & & \\
\midrule
GC & & & \\
\midrule
OED & & & \\
\bottomrule
%\end{tabularx}
\end{longtable}
\end{landscape}
\end{document}
答案3
字体大小为ltablex，，每页都有表格标题，并且仅包含本 MWE 序言的必要部分：enumitem\small
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{geometry}
\usepackage{booktabs, ltablex}
\keepXColumns
\newcommand\mc[1]{\multicolumn{1}{c}{#1}}
\usepackage{pdflscape}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\begin{document}
\begin{landscape}
\small
\setlist[enumerate]{nosep,
wide,
label=\textbf{\arabic*}.,
before = \vspace{-\baselineskip},
after = \vspace{-\baselineskip}
}
\setlength\tabcolsep{3pt}
\begin{tabularx}{\linewidth}{@{}lXXX@{}}
\caption{Empirical Analysis comparing DY, GHD, SVS}
\label{tab1}
\\ \toprule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Transmission}
\\ \midrule
\mc{Blocks} & \mc{DY} & \mc{GHD} & \mc{GHD-SVD}
\\
\endfirsthead
\caption*{Table~\thetable: Empirical Analysis comparing DY, GHD, SVS}
\label{tab1} \\
\toprule
\multicolumn{4}{c}{Transmission}
\\ \midrule
\mc{Blocks} & \mc{DY} & \mc{GHD} & \mc{GHD-SVD}
\\
\endhead
\midrule
\multicolumn{4}{r}{\textit{continue on the next page}}
\endfoot
\bottomrule
\endlastfoot
AC & \begin{enumerate}
\item Transmission mounts for India, Singapore and Thailand facing GFC.
\item South Korean transmissions amplify during 2002-2004, when then global economy was riddled with many crises.
\item Malaysia and the Philippines markets demonstrates neutral to dampening transmissions all around.
\item Inclusion of oil and commodity indices amplifies transmission during crisis, only for India and South Korea.
\item Little amplification in transmission is observed for all participants facincg GFC.
\end{enumerate}
& \begin{enumerate}
\item Patterns accord well with DY results for India, Singapore and Thailand during 2006-2008 GFC period.
\item As opposed to DY depiction, South Korean transmission bears negetive sign suggesting, dampening of transmission is dominant during 2002-2004.
\item The Philippines and South Korea portrays negative transmissions , with the only exception during the GFC event. This supports DY argument.
\item Positive transmissions are plotted for all markets during GFC, similar to the DY observations
\end{enumerate}
& Transmissions in the AC cluster evince effects of contagion swaying the markets.
\\ \addlinespace
EC & \begin{enumerate}
\item We find a resurgence in transmission for Germany during 2002-2004 similar to that of South Korea mentioned earlier.
\item France and UK transmissions amplify in the advent of Eurozone crisis, while remaining neutral in th earlier crises.
\item Australian transmissions slightly amplify during GFC and during Export crisis. Dampening prevails in the transitions between crises.
\item Chinese transmissions amplify mostly with the recent Chinese crisis. Earlier, Chinese transmissions amplified only during GFC.
\end{enumerate}
& \begin{enumerate}
\item Again, with Germany we find negative transmissions across 2002-2004, rejecting DY depiction.
\item Consistent with DY, GHD shows positive transmission across Eurozone crisis, preceded by a negative dampening during GFC for both France and UK.
\item GHD is consistent with DY for Australia .
\item The findings are in accord with DY.
\end{enumerate}
& \begin{enumerate}
\item Results remain consistent with GHD, with contagion prevailing for Germany, France, UK markets.
\item Short-lived volatility rises profoundly for Australia and China corresponding to major events. This explains Australian and Chinese transmissions are driven predominantly .
\end{enumerate}
\\ \addlinespace
GC & \begin{enumerate}
\item Transmissions amplify for Greece, Portugal and Ireland with the Eurozone crisis /GC. Recently, Ireland transmissions ascend following a descend.
\item Belgium shows escalating transmissions facing the recent export shrinkage.
\end{enumerate}
& \begin{enumerate}
\item Greek transmission evinces small surges in the positive direction, followed by strong negative dampening.
\item Belgium transmissions remain neutral to dampening. Unlike DY, the positive and negative estimates offset strong amplifications for Belgium.
\item As the Greek crisis unfolds, positive transmissions resurge for Croatia. This is not identified with DY.
\end{enumerate}
\\ \addlinespace
OED & \begin{enumerate}
\item We find the strongest transmissions for the USA and Japan during dot comm bubble. studies in this tenet, is dismissed with GHD.
\item Russian transmissions amplify in all major events across the sample periods, leading to a phenomenal jump facing the recent Russian financial crisis of 2014-2015. Inclusion of oil and commodity indices slightly dampen the transmissions.
\item The transmissions for both Canada and Norway sharply descends corresponding to
\item Gyrations in the transmissions of New Zealand do not show sharp oscillations.
\end{enumerate}
& \begin{enumerate}
\item Of all the markets presented in this block, high volatility in transmissions holds sway over Japan and New Zealand only. Crucially, this explains `conduit' transmissions for Japan, s are volatility driven simply due to its high susceptibility to developed markets and oil shocks.
\item Risk transmission from Russia remains strongly positive for the most part, with exceptions only during the advent of GFC and Russian Crisis 2014-2015.
\item The patterns accord well with the DY findings for both Canada and Norway. Additionally, ...
\item For the most part, the transmissions that New Zealand emit is near to its mean, ...
\end{enumerate}
&
\\
\end{tabularx}
