ChaseDream

标题: 纠结了一个上午，希望得到圆满的答案 关于OG based on的用法（已经自行解决 感谢peter 3008） [打印本页]

---

作者: carlosh    时间: 2010-11-22 14:17
标题: 纠结了一个上午，希望得到圆满的答案 关于OG based on的用法（已经自行解决 感谢peter 3008）
关于base 这个词，很多朋友可能用的都是一个规律就是base不会用主动语态只能用被动语态，虽然这样做题能做对，但是我对

OG12 25 28 两题关于based on的问题 还是百思不得其解，虽然找过以往的帖子，我现在这贴就是复制以前的帖子 因为题目一样：

25.Based on accounts of various ancient writers, scholars have painted a sketchy picture of the activities of an all-female cult that, perhaps as early as the sixth century B.C., worshipped a goddess known in Latin as Bona Dea, "the good goddess."

(A) Based on accounts of various ancient writers


(B) Basing it on various ancient writers' accounts


(C) With accounts of various ancient writers used for a basis


(D) By the accounts of various ancient writers they used （E）


(E) Using accounts of various ancient writers


28.Building on civilizations that preceded them in coastal Peru, the Mochica developed their own elaborate society, based on cultivating such crops like corn and beans, the harvesting of fish and shellfish, and exploiting other wild and domestic resources.

a）based on cultivating such crops like corn and beans, the harvesting of fish and shellfish, and exploiting

b) Based on the cultivation of such crops as corn and beans, the harvesting of fish and seafood, and the exploitation of

c) and basing it on the cultivation of crops like corn and beans, harvesting fish and seafood, and the exploiting of

d) and they based it on their cultivation of crops such as corn and beans, the harvest of fish and seafood, and exploiting  （B）

e) and they based it on their cultivating such crops like corn and beans, their harvest of fish and shellfish, and they explited

看了以前的帖子，发现这个问题一直没有一个很好的解释，25题based on不能修饰scholars我理解，按照这个道理28题里based on就不能修饰the Mochica，有人说修饰society，但是这里有个帖子http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_SC/thread-433525-1-1.html里面说了

If a participial phrase comes at the end of a sentence, a comma usually precedes the phrase if it modifies an earlier word in the sentence but not if the phrase directly follows the word it modifies.

The local residents often saw Ken wandering through the streets.
(The phrase modifies Ken, not residents.)
Tom nervously watched the woman, alarmed by her silence.
(The phrase modifies Tom, not woman.)
问题来了，上面句子的意思是说如果有逗号隔开修饰成分的话，修饰成分一般不修饰就近的词而是修饰更远的更靠前的句子中的成分，那么OG28的based on根据这个原理就不应该修饰society 而应该修饰M开头的那一类人，导致逻辑错误。 我看的这篇帖子楼主的疑问似乎随着silent7706的解答解决了，silent7706的解答是这样的：
The second question involves the use of modifier. In general, the noun modifier (过去分词) must precede or follow immediately after the noun it modifies. For example,
“Shocked by the bad news, Emily ate two hotdogs.” Here, “shocked” clearly modifies “Emily”
“Emily ate two hotdogs, shocked by the bad news” Here, “shocked” modifies “hotdogs”

This rule is generally followed by GMAC. Let’s also look at one example from OG.
Verbal Review 1st Ed. 91 “In theory, international civil servants at the UN are prohibited from continuing to draw salaries from their own governments; in practice, however, some governments merely substitute living allowances for their employee’s paychecks, assigned by them to the United Nations.”
OG explains “assigned by them incorrectly and illogically modifiers paychecks”

Now let’s look at the second sentence:
"Tom nervously watched the woman, alarmed by her silence.
(The phrase modifies Tom, not woman.) "

By the same token, “alarmed by her silence” modifies “the woman”, right?However, here the issue gets complicated. Because by default we know that Tom is a guy, therefore, “her” CANNOT refer back to Tom. Otherwise we will have a nonsensical sentence that reads "Tom nervously watched the woman, alarmed by her [Tom’s] silence."

Let’s change the sentence a little bit, and now it reads:
"Sarah nervously watched the woman, alarmed by her silence."

Now the noun modifier “alarmed by her silence” will unambiguously modifiers “the woman.” The sentence read “Sarah nervously watched the woman, alarmed by her [Sarah’s] silencFor this reason, I’d argue that the second sentence is an exception and that tt is not really a good example. Here is a better way to write the sentence: "Alarmed by her silence, Tom nervously watched the woman." “Alarmed by her” clearly modifies “Tom.”

So here is the catch: In general, the noun modifier (过去分词) must precede or follow immediately after the noun it modifies, as the GMAC generally follows this rule.
但是我看完了解答后还是有疑问，silent7706的解答只解决了tom例句的问题，说这样的题可以通过修饰成分中的提示进行清晰只带，可是我觉得对28题的问题还是没有完全说清楚，tom的例子可以通过her一次进行清晰修饰，而28题中society和M这类人都可以成为修饰对象，没有her这类词清楚地排除修饰Mochica的可能。再加上silent7706的解答与a participial phrase comes at the end of a sentence, a comma usually precedes the phrase if it modifies an earlier word in the sentence but not if the phrase directly follows the word it modifies.
解释相悖，silent7706的意思就是说逗号后面的成分一般就近修饰名词，我想问到底哪一个是正确的？ 如果就近修饰society的话我真的觉得逗号很多余，逗号在这里没有作用么？希望这个问题能随着这个帖子永远的解决。

---

作者: kevin0214    时间: 2010-11-22 18:23
楼主，你的答案从哪里来的呀……28题明明选B……

分词短语在末尾用逗号隔开一般定语优先，所以当它可以修饰句末的名词时有歧义，用来作状语是有歧义的。逗号的存在表示这是一个非限制性定语，如果去掉就是限制性定语了，句意会有很大改变，如果没有合理的理由，这种改法是错误的。

---

作者: carlosh    时间: 2010-11-22 18:59

楼主，你的答案从哪里来的呀……28题明明选B……

分词短语在末尾用逗号隔开一般定语优先，所以当它可以修饰句末的名词时有歧义，用来作状语是有歧义的。逗号的存在表示这是一个非限制性定语，如果去掉就是限制性定语了，句意会有很大改变，如果没有合理的理由，这种改法是错误的。

-- by 会员 kevin0214 (2010/11/22 18:23:04)

谢谢楼上的回答，确实答案是打错了，我就是说B选项按您的说法分词短语在末尾用逗号隔开一般定定语优先，那么就是修饰society，可也可以修饰M那类人不是么？ 所以我觉得B有歧义

---

作者: carlosh    时间: 2010-11-22 21:16
晚上应该是高峰么 自己顶一下

---

作者: carlosh    时间: 2010-11-23 11:05
顶一下 没人回答

---

作者: kevin0214    时间: 2010-11-23 11:56
base 不能修饰M，人不能be based on,  当然我们不能因此说：所有在逻辑上无法被某个动词修饰的名词在在句中的存在不会造成歧义。
为什么这题没有歧义呢？要知道判断一个句子有没有歧义，不是单单看语法的，词语本身也很重要。语言这个东西不像数学那么精确，有时判断的标准就是“读一遍”，是读出声来那种，读完第一个涌上你心里的意思是什么？有没有两种意思？如果你想了很久才找到这个句子似乎还有第二种理解，这种理解在词语搭配上还有逻辑错误，那就不需要纠结它的逻辑错误了。
OG47.Five fledgling sea eagles left their nests in western Scotland this summer, bringing to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975.
从语法上说，这里bringing也可以看做修饰summer，但是我们不认为有考虑这个歧义的必要，因为summer bring...实在make no sense.
可以肯定的是本题中，based on紧接在一个经常作为be based on的主语的词语society的后面，native speaker不会读出歧义。虽然语感这种东西说不清楚，但是看看og那么的解释都是awkward，不得不承认，语感是必须的。

---

作者: carlosh    时间: 2010-11-23 14:54

base 不能修饰M，人不能be based on,  当然我们不能因此说：所有在逻辑上无法被某个动词修饰的名词在在句中的存在不会造成歧义。
为什么这题没有歧义呢？要知道判断一个句子有没有歧义，不是单单看语法的，词语本身也很重要。语言这个东西不像数学那么精确，有时判断的标准就是“读一遍”，是读出声来那种，读完第一个涌上你心里的意思是什么？有没有两种意思？如果你想了很久才找到这个句子似乎还有第二种理解，这种理解在词语搭配上还有逻辑错误，那就不需要纠结它的逻辑错误了。
OG47.Five fledgling sea eagles left their nests in western Scotland this summer, bringing to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised since transplants from Norway began in 1975.
从语法上说，这里bringing也可以看做修饰summer，但是我们不认为有考虑这个歧义的必要，因为summer bring...实在make no sense.
可以肯定的是本题中，based on紧接在一个经常作为be based on的主语的词语society的后面，native speaker不会读出歧义。虽然语感这种东西说不清楚，但是看看og那么的解释都是awkward，不得不承认，语感是必须的。

-- by 会员 kevin0214 (2010/11/23 11:56:57)

感谢kevin！！！
我一开始也没有产生歧义，但是当我看到DE现象发现有主动语态的时候我才产生了based on可能修饰M的歧义，DE严重干扰了我的判断，因为他们让我觉得整个句子的中心词是M，其实前面第一句的building on...引导的修饰成分修饰M我觉得也很牵强，然后我就觉得based on为什么不能像building on一样牵强的修饰M这类人呢？ 最后我想知道base on是不是一定没有主动语态？逗号后的过去分词修饰成分是就近修饰还是跳跃修饰主语还是要根据意思判断？ 像这道题如果修饰的是society，这个逗号我怎么看怎么觉得多余啊。。。

---

作者: carlosh    时间: 2010-11-23 14:57
确实有点长，因为我这个问题看了很多贴子，我想在这个贴子里把所有贴子的精华聚集了，彻底解决这个问题，还请麻烦耐心看看呢

---

作者: carlosh    时间: 2010-11-23 18:17
顶一下

---

作者: carlosh    时间: 2010-11-24 13:11
继续顶

---

作者: carlosh    时间: 2010-11-24 19:26
感谢peter3008 解决了我的所有问题！

1.-ed在句末,不管有无逗号,不表示伴随结果,都是就近修饰名词

2.现在分词在句末时，无逗号是就近修饰的名词的定语；
3.当现在分词在句尾且前有逗号时,修饰邻近句子的谓语动词,做谓语动词的伴随状语(其逻辑主语等于句子的主语)或做句子的伴随结果(无逻辑主语)(as a result of 与分词做的伴随结果状语功能一样,and so 也表示因果关系) .因此不能用句尾现在分词(前面加逗号)修饰前面句尾的名词.特别要注意伴随结果与因果并列句的比较和区别
4.当现在/过去分词在句中且前没有逗号,修饰前面紧邻名词;
5.当现在/过去分词在句中且前后都有逗号,有歧义:1)修饰前面紧邻的名词,2)向后修饰后面句子的主语.(夹心饼干)

6.在前面有多个名词如名词1+介词+名词2结构,而要用分词修饰名词1时,为避免歧义要重复名词1即用同位语结构:名词1+介词+名词2,名词1+分词.

---

作者: numberunique    时间: 2010-12-4 22:50
confusing

---

作者: AlohaDJ    时间: 2010-12-22 01:01
多谢10楼lz的总结！

Some quotes here:

"ast participles function as adjectives; they ALWAYS modify nouns. it's actually impossible for a past participle to modify a whole clause.

The rule for "clause + , + -ING" doesn't extend to past participles."

---

作者: 丝瓜    时间: 2011-3-6 01:05
谢谢啦

---

作者: sullivan215    时间: 2011-3-23 16:33
唉...同纠结~

---

作者: Lois6669    时间: 2011-5-15 11:40
Tom nervously watched the woman, alarmed by her silence.
这个好像就不符合上面所说的吧？

---

作者: AnnieFFish    时间: 2016-8-29 14:55

carlosh 发表于 2010-11-24 19:26
感谢peter3008 解决了我的所有问题！1.-ed在句末,不管有无逗号,不表示伴随结果,都是就近修饰名词2.现在分词 ...

谢谢楼主的分享！

第一条真的很重要昂

---

作者: 爱笑小番茄    时间: 2017-1-3 17:38
看一下！

---

作者: echoM    时间: 2017-9-23 16:37

carlosh 发表于 2010-11-24 19:26
感谢peter3008 解决了我的所有问题！1.-ed在句末,不管有无逗号,不表示伴随结果,都是就近修饰名词2.现在分词 ..

如果是-ed，放在句首这种情况

From Manhattan

1.Exhausted from her job, she bought a lottery ticket with hope of winning big (V）
Exhausted...job =adverbial modifier 修饰整个句子
2.Exhausted from her job, she has red hair (x)
因为不合逻辑
所以可以说 ed 放句首都是修饰 后面的整个 main clause 么
求解答

---

欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/)

Powered by Discuz! X3.3