with的用法

uuuuuu_uu

在曼哈顿论坛看到的，觉得还挺有用的，不知道CD有没有发过
I would just like to add to what you have said here. This is a example of an absolute phrase. And, as Ron rightly said, absolute phrase is used to zoom down at comtemporaneous circumstances associated with main action.
There are two absolute phrase constructs which is known to me
a) With NOUN VERB+ING : With cost of x plummeting, many people are blah -------
b) With NOUN Adverb of place: With twinkle in his eye, the old man said goodbye to his grandson. (copied from DOING GRAMMAR).

When we break these complex sentences into two or more simple sentences, WITH is altogether left out.
When with precedes an absolute phrase, with is an introductory word, like a subordinate conjunction. It is not part of the absolute itself. So absolute phrase that are introduced by with are not prepositional phrases. They remain absolute phrases.

Example: The cost of wireless service are plummeting since (in) the last year.
Mobile phones are becoming increasingly common.
Many people are now using their mobile phones to make calls across a wide region at night and on weekends.

Similarly, we can make simple sentences for 2nd example.
Twinkle was in his eye.
Old man said goodbye to his grandson.

As we see in these examples With is left out when understanding and simplifying the meaning of the absolute prhases starting with WITH (as WITH are not part of it).

Treatment of prepositional phrases starting with WITH is different.
WITH + NOUN (noun of preposition)
Example: With in prepositional phrases change to possessive words like has or have.

A house with a computer and a set of encyclopedias announces the sophistication of its occupants.

a. A house has a computer and a set of encyclopedias.
b. A house announces the sophistication of its occupants.

疯狂的狐狸

from existing official problems (including the ones you cited), we can infer that gmac is ok with using this kind of construction either (a) to modify a noun that precedes it, or (b) to modify a clause that precedes it.
so, as long as one of these two interpretations makes sense, the construction should be ok (provided that it doesn't contain any other errors).
if you have [complete sentence] + , + 'with xxxx', then 'with xxxx' should describe the idea of the entire preceding sentence.comma+with phrase can not modify the preceding noun.
补充 同来自曼哈顿论坛https://www.manhattanprep.com/gmat/forums/in-1988-the-council-on-economic-priorities-began-publishing-t5735-15.html

疯狂的狐狸

from RON:
“with" occupies a rather special place in the hearts of gmac's problem writers. in other words, "with" is NOT used like other prepositions, and so, accordingly, there are some unique points to absorb about its use.
the clearest example of this special usage is in the non-underlined part of og12 problem 29:
Theend of the eighteenth century saw the emergence of prize-stock breeding, with individual bulls and cows receiving awards, fetching unprecedented prices, and exciting enormous interest whenever they were put on show.
with individual bulls and cows receiving awards, fetching unprecedented prices, and exciting enormous interest
this usage directly violates the principles for the use of other prepositions -- specifically, "with + noun + VERBing" is allowed even though the VERBing, rather than the noun, is the intended object of "with". (i.e., in the sentence above, prize-stock breeding was not "with bulls and cows" -- it was specifically with prizes awarded to these animals.)
this is veeeerrry interesting, since identical constructions with other prepositions are definitely incorrect. for instance, i've never heard of people biting dogs is incorrect, because the intended object of the preposition is the action (the biting) rather than the noun ("people"); instead, one could write i've never heard that people have bitten dogs.

a similar usage can be found in og12 #23, with a past participle rather than an ING form ("with its weight concentrated...")

Once designed with its weight concentrated in a metal center, the discus used in track competition is now lined with lead around the perimeter, thereby improving stability in flight and resulting inlonger throws.
so, it is confirmed: "with" has its own special set of rules, independent of (and contradictory to) the rules for other pronouns.

上汤胡萝卜

想问一下comma+with的结构是修饰整个句子而不是就近修饰名词，是在with作为独立主格的结构的时候才成立吗？

纠结了好久关于with的用法，补一下之前cd上的nn们关于with用法的讨论（里面还有独立主格）
http://forum.chasedream.com/foru ... &highlight=with

      2.with+n结构
         用法一：  构成介词短语，这个结构做后置定语，可以修饰主语，也可以修饰宾语
         The diet of the ordinary Greek in classical times was largely vegetarian ----- vegetables, fresh cheese, oatmeal, and meal cakes, with meat as a rarity.（修饰主语）
           Visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and seen monkeys sleeping on the branches,
with arms and legs hanging like socks on a clothesline.（修饰宾语）

第二个例句（修饰宾语）里是代表如果with结构作定语就可以修饰原句里单独某个成分了吗？

manticore728

上汤胡萝卜 发表于 2016-6-2 12:39
想问一下comma+with的结构是修饰整个句子而不是就近修饰名词，是在with作为独立主格的结构的时候才成立吗？ ...

论坛上RON大神的回复，希望能够帮助到你

RON对此句话的解释："comma+with" is modifying that whole action--- "monkeys sleeping on the branches". not“ monkey ”alone. 所以comma+with在这里并不是修饰单独的noun--monkey，而是修饰整个猴子睡觉的动作（与论坛稍有出入）


对于“comma+with” 修饰邻近noun 还是preceding clause,RON给出的回复是：

If ‘, with xxxxx' follows only a noun，there's no action there.
then there is no issue—clearly it's describing a noun.

in general, "COMMA + prep phrase modifier" is an adverbial modifier, meaning that it modifies the entirety of the preceding clause.（如1楼同学）在猴子这个句子中preceding clause有猴子挂在树上睡觉的动作，因此不只是修饰邻近noun--monkey,而是修饰preceding clause

至于修饰的preceding clause中的主语还是谓语，MANHATTAN老师的回复是：There is no rule that says a comma+with MUST modify a subject and verb. What you need to do is figure out what makes sense in context and make sure no actual rules are violated

Nievesma

感谢分享！               

LLSDJF

感谢分享！               

MintBlood

感谢分享！               

hefeier0326

看一下！               

Titles

感谢分享！