修正千行excel碰到的一个很蛋疼的解释！OG12 30

铁板神猴

放在句末protecting表示的是一个purpose（items-----whose purpose is protecting）
如果protecting放在句首就是（because of protecting-----were essential，就像baby姐之前给出的stacey的例子一样）

I agree with your analysis, but with one different point, as per OG's explanation.

疑问来了，究竟manhattan上面说的svo，ving和ving，svo这个互换位置能被justify么？

这种宏观的问题谁敢回答
I’ve noticed that your post has been deleted by Ron...
why not create a similar sentence yourself, and ask again but focus on the general question above? Good luck...

-- by 会员 铁板神猴 (2012/8/31 18:37:33)

我知道已经杯具了，不过在这题的层面上来说，的确是可以filp的

-- by 会员 DUKB24 (2012/8/31 18:53:21)

为何你每次都会打成"filp"==
这题的确可以flip, 但是正如你所说的那样，放在后面it modifys the items, indicating the purpose of the items; when it precedes the main clause, the present participle modifys the subjective "shields", as if it's the function of protecting that results the essential items the shields were used as.
on strict grounds, it slightly distorts the original meaning, though not enough to make the sentence nonsense.

-- by 会员 铁板神猴 (2012/9/1 19:57:19)

这里是adverbial modifier，但不是indicate consequence，it just provides extra information


所以你放在前面也不会去改变意思


但是如果当adverbial modifier用作来indicate consequence，就不能乱动

-- by 会员 DUKB24 (2012/9/1 20:29:32)

NOT indicate consequence.
I mean, "protecting ..." here modifys items, indicating (which here IS providing additional information) the purpose of items. this is from the OG explanation, and I give totally my credence to it!

anyway, it is an adverbial modifier. I agree with you on this point.

BUT it still, though, slightly changes the original meaning (1), which is "shields were essential items, the purpose of which is to protect soldiers", to another superficially similar but indeed different meaning (2) of "because the shields could protect soldiers, they were essential items for ancient people", if you flip the sequence of two clauses.

as the following:
1. ..., animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, protecting warriors against enemy arrows and spears.
2. ..., protecting warriors against enemy arrows and spears, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment.

I used to find that you did have the same idea in your original understanding, why did you change it later?

(once it indicates consequence as an adverbial modifer, the "comma-ving" definitely can't be moved in the sequence. I agree with that.)

女王的肥皂

疑问来了，究竟manhattan上面说的svo，ving和ving，svo这个互换位置能被justify么？

我这两天做OG， 我觉得这条可以justify. Ving 都暗含这个逻辑主语就是S。

66. The 32 species that make up the dolphin family are closely related to whales and in fact include the animal known as the killer whale, which can grow to be 30 feet long and is famous for its aggressive hunting pods.
(A) include the animal known as the killer whale, which can grow to be 30 feet long and is
(B) include the animal known as the killer whale, growing as big as 30 feet long and
(C) include the animal known as the killer whale, growing up to 30 feet long and being
(D) includes the animal known as the killer whale, which can grow as big as 30 feet long and is
(E) includes the animal known as the killer whale, which can grow to be 30 feet long and it is
这个题，仔细看B。
the explaination of OG: the participial growing might refer to the 32 species.

65. a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy. 开始的时候，absorbing 也是指代前面的主语，但是这个主语就是that. 再找that指代什么，就是a breakwater of rock了。
还有 1 C The Glass House Mountains in Queensland, Austrilia, were sighted in 1770 by the English navigator Captain James Cook, naming them suposedly since their sheer wet rocks glistened like glass.
OG expalination: As the objects of a preposition and not the subject of the clause, James Cook does not work as the noun that that verbal phrase beginning with naming can describe;.


我的总结，就是 Ving 在这个三个句子情况都是指代主语主语的。
30 的情况就是， A is B， protecting。 protecting解释A。
47 表示了Ving发生时间和主句动词是同时的。

这样就是Ving的逻辑主语就是主语主语，同时表示与主语动词在时间上的一致。

铁板神猴

我的总结，就是 Ving 在这个三个句子情况都是指代主语主语的。
30 的情况就是， A is B， protecting。 protecting解释A。
47 表示了Ving发生时间和主句动词是同时的。

这样就是Ving的逻辑主语就是主语主语，同时表示与主语动词在时间上的一致。

-- by 会员 女王的肥皂 (2012/9/5 20:23:35)

I agree with you. All you summarized are correct!
but that CANNOT justify the "rule" about changing the sequence of ving and SVO. Here's why I think so:

take Stacey's words as an example:

As a very general rule, think of a "comma -ing" as modifying the clause that it's touching (but the "comma -ing" could come at the beginning, middle, or end). When it comes at the beginning, we often think of it as a noun modifier, but it's still the same thing.
Slipping on the ice, I fell and broke my ankle. (Ouch!)
--> I'm not just trying to say that *I* slipped on the ice. I'm trying to say that, as a result of slipping on the ice, *I fell.*
I slipped on the ice, breaking my ankle.
--> again, it's not just that I broke my ankle - it's that I broke it because I slipped.

Slipping on the ice, I fell and broke my ankle. (Ouch!)
--- Note that you would neither say:
I fell and broke my ankle, slipping on the ice.
----this change indicates that I slipped on the ice because I fell and broke my ankle. ---incorrect. it doesn't make sense.

I slipped on the ice, breaking my ankle.
--- If you switch v-ing to the front of the subject "I":
Breaking my ankle, I slipped on the ice.
----again, you are accually trying to say that, as a result of breaking my ankle, I slipped on the ice. ---incorrect. Man! you broke your ankle, so you could slipped on the ice??? It just doesn't make sense!

These two anti-evidences are way enough to break that rule. I am just trying to say that, it is NOT ALWAYS OK with the following rule:

manhattan上面说的svo，ving和ving，svo这个互换位置能被justify么？

女王的肥皂

额， 我说个很逆天的言论。

我承认Stacey 是很好的instructor, 但是所有例子都是她自己的，不是GMAC的。

铁板神猴

额， 我说个很逆天的言论。

我承认Stacey 是很好的instructor, 但是所有例子都是她自己的，不是GMAC的。

-- by 会员 女王的肥皂 (2012/9/6 13:57:28)

First, I give my total credence to and am even a supporter of this belief, ALWAYS focus on the Official materials!

but try moving out of that mindset, and turn to rethink about the reasoning here itself.

here, we are just trying to use some analogies to help understand meaning issues, that is, as Ron also said,
the -ing action must be either
(1) simultaneous with AND subordinate to, or
(2) a direct and inevitable consequence of,
the action in the main clause.

(1) is what you've mentioned about and (2) is the reason why you cannot change the sequence of ving and SVO. (though not the same in the OG12 #30 problem, which I've talked above for another reason called "purpose&because")

v-ing, sb did A ---it indicates v-ing might be the reason of A.
sb did B, v-ing ---it indicates v-ing might be the result of B.

just take an OG correct sentence for an example: OG12 #65

In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.
--- correct. “absorbing” is the result or function of “rise and act”

In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches, would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer.
--- incorrect. Why it sounds weird? It seems here that, because of absorbing, a breakwater of rocks would be able to “rise and act”. This doesn’t make sense.

As Stacey said, In general, there's a sequence to these constructions. The thing that's written first happens first, and the second thing happens after, as a result of, as a consequence of the first thing.

I find it quite golden. And that's all I want to say. No more on this topic.

女王的肥皂

(2) a direct and inevitable consequence of the action in the main clause.

关于第二点，“a direct and inevitable consequence of the action in the main clause.” 这个超出了我说的范围。拿OG47 65验证，我表示同意。

DUKB24

(2) a direct and inevitable consequence of the action in the main clause.

关于第二点，“a direct and inevitable consequence of the action in the main clause.” 这个超出了我说的范围。拿OG47 65验证，我表示同意。

-- by 会员 女王的肥皂 (2012/9/7 9:07:38)

。。。。。当表示后果的时候不能乱移，我觉得其他时候都能被justified


大家都太过纠结了...好学生啊

铁板神猴

discussing inspires minds

Charline_chang

ving 可以修饰主句主语有以下2种情况：
1. subject is.... ，ving. 此时ving 是在修饰主语；
2.  ving, subject.... . 此时ving 也是在修饰主语。

另外一种ving 的逻辑主语是主句主语： 当ving 在句尾时，做伴随动作和主句动作同时发生 。