ChaseDream

标题: OG38？ [打印本页]

作者: 心晴 时间: 2004-5-14 08:30
标题: OG38？

38. Scientists have observed large concentrations of heavy-metal deposits in the upper twenty centimeters of Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there.

(A) Baltic Sea sediments, which are consistent with the growth of industrial activity there

(B) Baltic Sea sediments, where the growth of industrial activity is consistent with these findings

(C) Baltic Sea sediments, findings consistent with its growth of industrial activity

(D) sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area

(E) sediments from the Baltic Sea, consistent with the growth of industrial activity there

All of the choices but D contain ambiguities. In A and B the words which and where appear to refer to sediments, and in E it is not clear what consistent describes. In A, C, and E, there is no logical place to which there or its could refer. In D, the best choice, the phrase sediments from the Baltic Sea tells where the sediments originate, findings provides a noun for consistent to modify, and in the area clearly identifies where the industrial activity is growing.

哪位NN能帮我解释一下吗？

作者: bon 时间: 2004-5-14 13:11

the phrase sediments from the Baltic Sea tells where the sediments originate

我认为这句话告诉我们sediments from the Baltic Sea 好于Baltic Sea sediments的表示法

作者: tianwan 时间: 2004-5-14 14:27

Baltic Sea sediments和sediments from the Baltic Sea虽然意思上有微小的不同，我觉得，the phrase sediments from the Baltic Sea tells where the sediments originate 不应该作为判据。因为Baltic Sea sediments also tells where the sediments originate。

判据应该是：后面分句的in the area需要指代的对象。Baltic Sea sediments不能，Baltic Sea可以。

请NN指正。这一题OG的解释困扰我很长时间了，和楼主的疑惑一样。我觉得OG里的有些解释有问题。

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-5-14 14:29:20编辑过]

作者: 心晴 时间: 2004-6-3 22:22
Baltic Sea sediments为什么没有sediments from the Baltic Sea好啊？不是前者更简洁吗？还有OG的解释，实在不明白

,谁能再解释一下啊？

作者: tianwan 时间: 2004-6-3 22:48

可能是：sediments from the Baltic Sea，研究的时候这个sediments来自Baltic Sea但已经在实验室了。Baltic Sea sediments可能给人误解，在研究的时候科学家dive into Baltic Sea with scuba and analyze the sediments on site.

作者: babypace 时间: 2004-6-4 11:15
og说from很明白的表示了sediments的来源，不会产生歧义。Baltic Sea sediments并不能说明sediments是Baltic Sea产生的，还是其他来源。

作者: 心晴 时间: 2004-6-5 08:52

以下是引用tianwan在2004-6-3 22:48:00的发言：

呵呵，你说的很好玩，但是很形象，受教了：）

作者: 心晴 时间: 2004-6-5 08:53

以下是引用babypace在2004-6-4 11:15:00的发言：
og说from很明白的表示了sediments的来源，不会产生歧义。Baltic Sea sediments并不能说明sediments是Baltic Sea产生的，还是其他来源。

明白了，呵呵，谢谢你说的这么清楚

作者: juningw 时间: 2005-2-26 22:44

支持二位的解释。

欧觉得已经事情已经比较清楚了。

作者: elaineyin819 时间: 2007-8-28 16:51

我的理解是:

修饰成份要尽量靠近被修饰部分

(C) Baltic Sea sediments, findings consistent with its growth of industrial activity

(D) sediments from the Baltic Sea, findings consistent with the growth of industrial activity in the area

这里in the upper twenty centimeters of 显然要修饰不是B海而是sediments, C可能会造成歧义

open to discuss

作者: dormousedzc 时间: 2007-12-1 23:21

有个问题还是非常地confused:

findings consistent with...到底是同位语,还是独立主格结构???

我个人偏向于认为是同位语,相当于findings (that are) consistent with...

OG Verbal Review上说findings refers back to
the scientists' observations. 貌似也是在暗示这是同位语从句.现在的关键就是搞清楚同位语是否能指代一句话,之前看到的例子都是有明显指代物的.

例:OG11-72,110,114 VerbalReview-16,77

NNs,help!

[此贴子已经被作者于2007-12-1 23:37:25编辑过]

作者: tigercaiqun 时间: 2008-2-29 09:23

我不是NN,我认为findings consistent with...是同位语.

独立主格结构是一个语法现象,而同位语是语法功能, 独立主格结构可以做同位语. 因此这题的findings consistent...是独立主格结构做同位语.

这里的结构是名词+形容词词组,符合独立主格结构的特征, finds是前面的句子的概括,除了重复前面出现的名词这种同位语方式外,用一个新名词来概括前面的一句话也是同位语的一种.

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-3-12 23:28:46编辑过]

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