when children ( or a child) 实际上都是省略主谓语的状语从句，只有在从句的主谓语与主句一致时才可以省略，但是实际that occoured 的主语是divorce，而从句子意思我们可以明白，when的主语应该是women and men，两者并不一致，所以我们必须使用when they are were children 而不是when children
另外我想问问，og的说明不能用as代替when，这两者的区别是什么，as也有当什么的时候的意思啊？
同意楼上的话 , 会产生歧义,还是把主语补齐的好
?? and C corrects only the error created by occurring. what's the meaning?
哪来的occurring? 是说把 (c) that occurred when a child换成 occurring when achild???
请指教, thanks
月亮花生, 请见
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=23&replyID=106073&id=15663&skin=0
The complete form of choice A is "occurring when (divorce was) a child" .
Note:The clause is 'A divorce occured when (it was) a child', the logic subject (which is the subject of the clause) and link verb are omitted. So if you want to restore the omitted part, you have to use the subject of the sentence plus be. It is a rule, so memorize it. Of cource the meaning of this clause is absurd, so A is wrong.
Pls refer to 《新编英语语法，章振邦》P1153，chapter36，无动词分句。
同意楼上的话 , 会产生歧义,还是把主语补齐的好
?? and C corrects only the error created by occurring. what's the meaning?
哪来的occurring? 是说把 (c) that occurred when a child换成 occurring when achild???
请指教, thanks
The occuring in choice A. C改正了A的occurring造成的错误。
1.as 和when 引导时间状从的区别仅仅在于as有延续性含义吗？还有什么区别？
2.E 改成that occured as they were childeren 可以吗？
谢谢指教！
as 可能强调"随着", 表示伴随动作, 好像还是一个进行中的过程, 而when 只简单表示一个时间.
so could I use (... divorce occured when they were children) instead of (...divorce that occured when they were children) ?
To hpp920:
"that" 在 divorce 后引导定语从句，不要省略。
Divorce occurred when (divorce) a child
括号中的divorce, 为什么是省略啊? 能帮我解释一下吗?
To joe11, 谢谢你, 我已弄懂了自己的问题.这里that是不能省的.
T0: hellen-wen: when 从句是occured的时间壮语, occured的主语就suppose 是when 从句省略的主语.
Still confused, in og:
"...Choice A incorrectly introduces the when... phrase with occurring, thus illogically making divorce the grammatical referent of when a child; ...... C corrects only the error created by occurring. ..."
这里OG像是说: A用occuring不对, 而C用that occured 就消除了"illogically making divorce the grammatical referent of when a child" 的错误. why? 不都是引导了定语来修饰divorce吗? 请NN解惑!
事實上，只要occur的前面沒有逗號，你寫成occurring when they were children或是that occurred when they were children 都行，A的錯和C的錯，都是後面的a child 出現了歧異
感谢楼上帮助! But it seemed that you did not answer my question!
再问!
great
Can anyone advise?
In choice A, why does ETS say that “occurring” illogically makes divorce the grammatical referent of when a child? "that occurred" should induce the illogical modification as well, such as C, D, or E. Any input?
分词有连续不断的动作的含义，所以总不能说一直在离婚吧，那也太惨了...
昨天查了一本张道真的语法书，关于现在分词做定语有个解释：现在分词做定语，有三个作用，其一，相当于进行时态表示的正在进行的动作,这个好理解；其二，相当于一般时态所表示的任何时候都能发生的动作，eg:A man living in town rarely sees cows.要注意：做定语的现在分词和谓语动作必须表示相同的时间，否则只能用定语从句，不能用现在分词。eg:I muse find out the child who broke my door.(not breaking my door)如果是最后这一句所示的规则。那么该句使用that occured修饰divorce是非常合理的。
大家可以验证一下，在gmat中的语法是否符合这个规律。
AS,WHEN 到底怎么区别??
如改成occured when children对吗??
AS,WHEN 到底怎么区别??
如改成occured when children对吗??
No, becasue the omited subjuect after when should be 'divorce', and you can't say that when "divorce" are children.
再问
D. that occurred when they were children。
that 可以删除吗？（ 定从中主，系尽量省略。）
In other words, is there anything wrong with the wording in which divorce occurred when they were children?
我明白了。
此处that 不能省， 因为that occurred 不是主，系结构。
some of the effects of a divorce that occurred when they were children .
that不可以省 如果省了 " occurred when they were children 會變成修飾"effects" 而非 "divorce"
还是不太明白, 这里省略了that应该是可以的吧? 没有什么歧义呀.
谁能帮忙解释一下.
some of the effects of a divorce that occurred when they were children .
that不可以省 如果省了 " occurred when they were children 會變成修飾"effects" 而非 "divorce"
能说下理由吗？
我明白了。
occurred 作为不及物动词必须有that作主语。
这题的they会不会指代到the effects 呢?
清楚啰,谢谢MM
Can anyone advise?
In choice A, why does ETS say that “occurring” illogically makes the grammatical referent of ? "that occurred" should induce the illogical modification as well, such as C, D, or E. Any input?
when a child,不能occurring divorce的,都没结婚,哪来离婚呢
能不能说occuring when they were children呢？如果正确答案D不在的话？
是不是就是因为occuring不能作为一个持续动作呢？
盼望指教！
occuring是错的，when a child也有错，但是when a child的错误不是由于occuring造成的，OG的说法是否欠妥当？？
divorce occurring when a child.
这个WHEN后面的主语该和前面的什么一致啊？
如果是 S+V+O+WHEN。。。后面是和S一致还是和O一致？
能不能说occuring when they were children呢？如果正确答案D不在的话？
是不是就是因为occuring不能作为一个持续动作呢？
盼望指教！
对比一下这题
1. Salt deposits and moisture threaten to destroy the Mohenjo-Daro excavation in Pakistan, the site of an ancient civilization that flourished at the same time as the civilizations in the Nile delta and the river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates.
(A) that flourished at the same time as the civilizations
(B) that had flourished at the same time as had the civilizations
(C) that flourished at the same time those had
(D) flourishing at the same time as those did（A）
(E) flourishing at the same time as those were
OG明确解释了flourishing有ongoing的嫌疑。所以我认为这个occuring不可以。对于过去发生的某个动作，ets喜欢用that did
To hpp920:
"that" 在 divorce 后引导定语从句，不要省略。
那么在og中，什么从句中的that省略是更简洁的呢。不就是定语从句么
另外，我在菜鸟手册中看到注释，说occurring修饰的是局部，也就是divorce,而that occurred 修饰的是整体，这个意思有什么差别呢。
到现在还是对这题晕乎乎的。sigh
也问
怎么感觉that occured 就是修饰局部divooce 呢
没有找到阿，jj
Ok, it's time to clarify everything!!!
A. 限定性修饰, 起限制约束作用:
1.由that 引导的定语从句, (that只引导限定性定语从句, 前面不会有逗号)
2.由前面没有逗号的一wh开头的词(who, which...)引导的定语从句,
3.with引导的短语
构成的修饰就是限定性的修饰, 起限制的作用. 就象OG1里的that定语从句. 什么样的divorce呢? 是发生在when they were children时候的divorce, 而不是所有的divorce. 即限定
B. 非限制性修饰:
1. 由前面有逗号的一wh开头的词(who, which...)引导的定语从句
2. 由分词短语
构成的修饰就是非限制性修饰, 起解释, 说明的作用. 就象OG1里的divorce, 如果用分词修饰就变成 divorce 的定义(definition) 是 occuring when a child, 即解释, 说明.
明白了。也就是说，divorce that occured 是限定divorce在when they were children的范围内。
divorce occurring是起到一个补充说明的作用，没有限制，所以就导致occurring＋when等等成为后面的修饰成分，然后就造成了歧义。
又一个绕口令
补充一点, 也是对我以前犯的一个错误的更正:
这里正确选项D中的that个人理解应该是可以的, 大家可以看看OG210, 解释的第三行和第四行写的相当清楚, 分词可以跳越修饰而不产生歧义, 相当于A of B结构, 同时, 这题也充分说明了在定语从句和分词的比较属于简洁性错误, 而简洁是effectiveness, 不能作为开始排除答案的依据.
同时保留以前的解释: 不及物动词极除少数外, 不可以被动, 它们的过去分词形式表示一种过去完成时的概念.
叶子看这个
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?BoardID=23&ID=103107
不过里面有一个typ "2，3句是非限定的"应改成"3, 4句是非限定的"
补充一点, 也是对我以前犯的一个错误的更正:
这里正确选项D中的that个人理解应该是可以的, 大家可以看看OG210, 解释的第三行和第四行写的相当清楚, 分词可以跳越修饰而不产生歧义, 相当于A of B结构, 同时, 这题也充分说明了在定语从句和分词的比较属于简洁性错误, 而简洁是effectiveness, 不能作为开始排除答案的依据.
同时保留以前的解释: 不及物动词极除少数外, 不可以被动, 它们的过去分词形式表示一种过去完成时的概念.
我也说两句：OG的解释:Choice A incorrectly introduces the when... phrase with occurring, thus illogically making divorce the grammatical referent of when a child是什么意思啊?
我理解意思是：当WHEN...从句跟在OCCURRING后，就造成了前面被修饰的DIVORCE成了WHEN A CHILD的语法上的主语（为什么？前面已经有朋友说了：当主语与前面相同时省略),这显然时不合逻辑的。（因为 DOVICE 怎么会 IS A CHILD 呢？）
Ok, it's time to clarify everything!!!
A. 限定性修饰, 起限制约束作用:
1.由that 引导的定语从句, (that只引导限定性定语从句, 前面不会有逗号)
2.由前面没有逗号的一wh开头的词(who, which...)引导的定语从句,
3.with引导的短语
构成的修饰就是限定性的修饰, 起限制的作用. 就象OG1里的that定语从句. 什么样的divorce呢? 是发生在when they were children时候的divorce, 而不是所有的divorce. 即限定
B. 非限制性修饰:
1. 由前面有逗号的一wh开头的词(who, which...)引导的定语从句
2. 由分词短语
构成的修饰就是非限制性修饰, 起解释, 说明的作用. 就象OG1里的divorce, 如果用分词修饰就变成 divorce 的定义(definition) 是 occuring when a child, 即解释, 说明.
og 07 Dr. Hakuta's research among Hispanic children in the United States indicates that the more the children use both Spanish and English, their intellectual advantage is greater in skills underlying reading ability and nonverbal logic.
(A) their intellectual advantage is greater in skills underlying reading ability and nonverbal logic
(B) their intellectual advantage is the greater in skills underlaying reading ability and nonverbal logic
(C) the greater their intellectual advantage in skills underlying reading ability and nonverbal logic
(D) in skills that underlay reading ability and nonverbal logic, their intellectual advantage is the greater
(E) in skills underlying reading ability and nonverbal logic, the greater intellectual advantage is theirs
The best choice is C.
分词修饰是非限定性的.但此题中的underlying非限定修饰skills,意思就是说所有skills都是以reading ability and nonverbal logic.为基础的. 岂不是很荒谬? 分词修饰到底是非限定还是限定性?请各位NN指点,谢谢!
顶一下,等待N人指点.
我再来一次，实际上我和楼上有同感，我觉得这里不是非限定修饰和限定修饰的问题，
令外也觉得 N+分词 是限定修饰，因为OG 143 OG144
多谢。
还是不太明白, 这里省略了that应该是可以的吧? 没有什么歧义呀.
谁能帮忙解释一下.
应该不可以的，divorce that occured when ... 这里that引导的是定语从句修饰divorce，但是that在从句中是做主语。由that引导的定语从句并且that做主语，那么that不能省略
This equals to:
even after a decade young men and women still experience some of the effects of a divorce That has/had occurred when they were children
?
and "has/had" is not correct here, because has - means something is happened before now , so not correct with "when they were "(?)
had occurred- not correct, should be at the same time as they were children, not happen before "they were children", so should be "occured"
so "that" can't be omitted, otherwise make it confusing, ="that has/had occurred"
am I correct?
我觉得现在分词和过去分词作定语的区别，主要是表示的主动还是被动的不同。
另外有个问题，divorce为何使用单数，它不是很多men and women的divorces吗？盼DNN指教
OG里有提到，对一个群体如果指一个共有特征的时候，这个特征可以用单数。
例如：monkeys which have an extra bone in their ears.
頂! 太精彩的討論了!
好贴
A. 限定性修饰, 起限制约束作用:
1.由that 引导的定语从句, (that只引导限定性定语从句, 前面不会有逗号)
2.由前面没有逗号的一wh开头的词(who, which...)引导的定语从句,
3.with引导的短语
OG-141
141. Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same, all patients receiving hearts or other organs must take antirejection drugs for the rest of their lives.
(A) Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
(B) Besides transplants involving identical twins with the same genetic endowment
(C) Unless the transplant involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment
(D) Aside from a transplant between identical twins with the same genetic endowment (C)
(E) Other than transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
疑问：
按照薰衣紫草NN总结的规则，此题B/C/D应该都是同样的逻辑错误。但是OG－141的解释中指出了B/D选项限制性修饰带来的逻辑错误，却认为C选项是正确答案。
In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical. Choice C, the best answer, solves these problems by using a clause introduced by Unless to describe the exception to the rule and a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.
疑惑中，请NN帮忙～～！！
ding
仍然疑惑那这里that occurred
和occurring的错误原因到底是限定性非限定性定语从句的问题还是仅仅因为现在分词表示动作的反复、正在进行和延续，用在这里不合适，后面还有时间状语when，只能是过去分词表示一次性发生的动作，，请教NN
OG-141
141. Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same, all patients receiving hearts or other organs must take antirejection drugs for the rest of their lives.
(A) Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
(B) Besides transplants involving identical twins with the same genetic endowment
(C) Unless the transplant involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment
(D) Aside from a transplant between identical twins with the same genetic endowment (C)
(E) Other than transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
疑问：
按照薰衣紫草NN总结的规则，此题B/C/D应该都是同样的逻辑错误。但是OG－141的解释中指出了B/D选项限制性修饰带来的逻辑错误，却认为C选项是正确答案。
In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical. Choice C, the best answer, solves these problems by using a clause introduced by Unless to describe the exception to the rule and a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.
疑惑中，请NN帮忙～～！！
这个问题问的真是太好了,我查了1个小时关于限定非限定的资料,有如下两点体会.
1. 根据arizon state university的教材, who也有可能引导非限制性定语从句.
2. 所有我查到的美国人的资料都没有把是否有逗号当作唯一的标准来判断; 真正唯一的标准都是要求从意思上来判断,是否是必须的,不可或缺的内容,所以我们自己做的这些流传甚广的总结至多只能是适用于大多数情况,并不绝对.
如下就是老美的划分!
Restrictive Non-Restrictive (appositive/parenthetical)
a. begins with wh words or that may begin with wh words
b. presents highly relevant information gives “extra” information
c. is not separated from the sentence is separated by commas, dashes, or parentheses
OG-141
141. Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same, all patients receiving hearts or other organs must take antirejection drugs for the rest of their lives.
(A) Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
(B) Besides transplants involving identical twins with the same genetic endowment
(C) Unless the transplant involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment
(D) Aside from a transplant between identical twins with the same genetic endowment (C)
(E) Other than transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
疑问：
按照薰衣紫草NN总结的规则，此题B/C/D应该都是同样的逻辑错误。但是OG－141的解释中指出了B/D选项限制性修饰带来的逻辑错误，却认为C选项是正确答案。
In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical. Choice C, the best answer, solves these problems by using a clause introduced by Unless to describe the exception to the rule and a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.
疑惑中，请NN帮忙～～！！
这题OG印刷错误,C的who前面漏了逗号,有ETS的回信.看这:18楼
http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=23&replyid=192112&id=26199&page=1&skin=0&Star=2
这里不能用occurring，因为主句现在时态，occur过去时态，两者不一致时一定要用定语从句
这题我知道 我一本高中的语法书里说 如果有明显的时间状语 不能用分词 只能用定语从句
| 欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |