ChaseDream

标题: 求助:OG12 SC #5_关于过去分词有逗号在句尾的修饰问题 [打印本页]

作者: Thyrod    时间: 2011-7-14 11:26
标题: 求助:OG12 SC #5_关于过去分词有逗号在句尾的修饰问题
OG12 #5
Diabetes, together with its serious complications, ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer.


Prep2 #181 补充说明
关于分词修饰语的理解 by tigercaiqun
1.当过去分词在句末时,不管有无逗号,都是就近修饰名词;


然而,很明显,这里surpassed如果就近修饰death的话,逻辑上是错误的,因为只有一种疾病(diabetes)才能被另外的疾病(heart disease and cancer)超越。
虽然OG12#5考察的不是这个考点,但是还是觉得有疑问。


NN能解答。
作者: nemiah    时间: 2011-7-14 11:44
LZ给了一个很好的反例哦~~
作者: qiuhua01234567    时间: 2011-7-14 12:44
顶上去,同求解,中文意思是这个5“糖尿病及它引起的并发症位居全国主要致死疾病第三位,仅次于心脏病和癌症。”
作者: Thyrod    时间: 2011-7-14 13:20
希望大神能够出现解答一下。
好不容易记住了一个规则,突然又不适用了,脑袋里面会混乱的
作者: nemiah    时间: 2011-7-14 14:13
我觉得这个事情应该这样理解:

SVO,Ved,这个过去分词应该修饰宾语
SV,Ved,这个过去分词应该修饰主语

而这里ranks as the nation's third cause of disease, cause of disease 只是as的介词短语的宾语,不是ranks的宾语,所以这里surpassed 修饰的是主语 糖尿病。。

总之,我的意思是作为伴随状语,一定要修饰前面主句中有实际意义的名词,要么是主语,要么是宾语。这样才叫伴随状语啊。不然有什么要伴随的呢?。。。 呵呵。 。
作者: vinbobo    时间: 2011-7-14 14:17
这一题中,我认为最后surpassed only by heart disease and cancer.

是一个伴随整句的修饰成分,而不是修饰某个具体的名词,因为这个部分和主题句中描述的过程是有同时存在的关系


此外,“
1.当过去分词在句末时,不管有无逗号,都是就近修饰名词;”这个规律,我没有在曼哈顿之类的语法书上看到过

建议具体考虑是否采用



作者: Thyrod    时间: 2011-7-14 14:40
我觉得这个事情应该这样理解:

SVO,Ved,这个过去分词应该修饰宾语
SV,Ved,这个过去分词应该修饰主语

而这里ranks as the nation's third cause of disease, cause of disease 只是as的介词短语的宾语,不是ranks的宾语,所以这里surpassed 修饰的是主语 糖尿病。。

总之,我的意思是作为伴随状语,一定要修饰前面主句中有实际意义的名词,要么是主语,要么是宾语。这样才叫伴随状语啊。不然有什么要伴随的呢?。。。 呵呵。 。
-- by 会员 nemiah (2011/7/14 14:13:53)


这里的surpassed无论修饰那个名词,都是做修饰名词的定语,和伴随状语没关系。
作者: Thyrod    时间: 2011-7-14 14:42
这一题中,我认为最后surpassed only by heart disease and cancer.

是一个伴随整句的修饰成分,而不是修饰某个具体的名词,因为这个部分和主题句中描述的过程是有同时存在的关系


此外,“
1.当过去分词在句末时,不管有无逗号,都是就近修饰名词;”这个规律,我没有在曼哈顿之类的语法书上看到过

建议具体考虑是否采用


-- by 会员 vinbobo (2011/7/14 14:17:51)


这是在Prep2008语法笔记里收录的
作者: vinbobo    时间: 2011-7-14 14:44
伴随状语是指状语从句的动作伴随主句发生,它的特点是:它所表达的动作或状态是伴随着句子谓语动词的动作而发生或存在的。   例如:   He sat in the armchair,reading a newspaper.   他坐在扶手椅里读报。   All night long he lay awake,thinking of the problem.   他整夜躺在床上睡不着,思考着那个问题。

简单的例子,你看你的句子,和我下面这句是不是很像?
The master entered the room,followed by his dog(主人进了屋,后面跟着他的狗)。
当然,这种句子由于是伴随主语的,事实上可以认为都是有主语发起的,或者是“修饰 主语的”

如果这还不能说服你,那我没有办法了
作者: nemiah    时间: 2011-7-14 14:48
LS说得蛮有道理
作者: Thyrod    时间: 2011-7-14 14:52
伴随状语是指状语从句的动作伴随主句发生,它的特点是:它所表达的动作或状态是伴随着句子谓语动词的动作而发生或存在的。   例如:   He sat in the armchair,reading a newspaper.   他坐在扶手椅里读报。   All night long he lay awake,thinking of the problem.   他整夜躺在床上睡不着,思考着那个问题。

简单的例子,你看你的句子,和我下面这句是不是很像?
The master entered the room,followed by his dog(主人进了屋,后面跟着他的狗)。
当然,这种句子由于是伴随主语的,事实上可以认为都是有主语发起的,或者是“修饰 主语的”

如果这还不能说服你,那我没有办法了
-- by 会员 vinbobo (2011/7/14 14:44:56)


说服我了
不过容我接受一下
作者: Thyrod    时间: 2011-7-14 16:49
虽然被说服了是可以用,但是哪位大神能够从理论上讲讲呢?
受了语法笔记太多的影响,一下子出现个反例,有点很难归纳到体系里去。
作者: jj449    时间: 2011-7-14 21:08
我也很疑惑这一点
从句which和that是就近修饰,但,
现在分词与过去分词做状语好像没有这一说法。
现在分词与过去分词做状语,应该都是修饰句子主语,
唯一的区别是动作发出的主动与被动之分。


这一题中,我认为最后surpassed only by heart disease and cancer.

是一个伴随整句的修饰成分,而不是修饰某个具体的名词,因为这个部分和主题句中描述的过程是有同时存在的关系


此外,“
1.当过去分词在句末时,不管有无逗号,都是就近修饰名词;”这个规律,我没有在曼哈顿之类的语法书上看到过

建议具体考虑是否采用


-- by 会员 vinbobo (2011/7/14 14:17:51)


作者: Thyrod    时间: 2011-7-14 21:19
不过终归有一点是肯定的,分词结构(无论是现在分词还是过去分词)1)在句尾2)有逗号,就要非常小心了。因为会产生修饰临近的名词,还是做状语修饰整个句子的歧义。

我也很疑惑这一点
从句which和that是就近修饰,但,
现在分词与过去分词做状语好像没有这一说法。
现在分词与过去分词做状语,应该都是修饰句子主语,
唯一的区别是动作发出的主动与被动之分。


这一题中,我认为最后surpassed only by heart disease and cancer.

是一个伴随整句的修饰成分,而不是修饰某个具体的名词,因为这个部分和主题句中描述的过程是有同时存在的关系


此外,“
1.当过去分词在句末时,不管有无逗号,都是就近修饰名词;”这个规律,我没有在曼哈顿之类的语法书上看到过

建议具体考虑是否采用


-- by 会员 vinbobo (2011/7/14 14:17:51)


-- by 会员 jj449 (2011/7/14 21:08:57)


作者: Thyrod    时间: 2011-8-2 20:27
顶一下,看看有谁还能一起讨论一下
作者: balapupu    时间: 2011-11-26 23:18
恩恩~~顶顶·~~
作者: alex318    时间: 2011-11-27 00:09
顶一下,我也有这个困惑。。。。
作者: my8822180    时间: 2011-12-19 18:28
OG12 #5
Diabetes, together with its serious complications, ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer.


Prep2 #181 补充说明
关于分词修饰语的理解 by tigercaiqun
1.当过去分词在句末时,不管有无逗号,都是就近修饰名词;


然而,很明显,这里surpassed如果就近修饰death的话,逻辑上是错误的,因为只有一种疾病(diabetes)才能被另外的疾病(heart disease and cancer)超越。
虽然OG12#5考察的不是这个考点,但是还是觉得有疑问。


NN能解答。
-- by 会员 Thyrod (2011/7/14 11:26:27)



刚才看另一个帖子的时候想到,其实这个规律也没错,因为就近的名词不是death,  而是the cause of death,中心词 是cause,这不是也没错吗,逻辑上和语义上都讲得通吧。
作者: leonnong    时间: 2012-3-10 22:50
嗯~说的不错~~是有例外的!~
作者: ash28    时间: 2012-8-16 09:53
这里引用Ron(一个国外的instructor)对OG SC-56题的解释说法
OG12-56
Many of the earliest known images of Hindu deities in India date from the time of the Kushan Empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or Gandharan grey schist.
A Empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
B Empire, fashioned from either the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
C Empire, either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
D Empire and either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
E Empire and were fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from (E)


这里撇开either……or……的并列结构不谈,仅谈fashioned的修饰问题,不同的人有不同的看法:
prep语法笔记上说 -ed在逗号后,原则上修饰逗号前面的名词,至于是一个名词还是名词词组(例如C1 of C2)版主aeoluseros说看语义定


这里摘录Ron对这道题的看法:(推荐!)
“ved” modifier could refer either to the subject or to the noun before; you'll have to use context to figure it out.


e.g.
Joe turned to face the audience, flushed with fear --> correct sentence; modifier modifies "Joe"
Joe will fight his next bout against Malik, renowned for his fierce left jab --> correct sentence; in this kind of (somewhat ambiguous) construction, the usual convention is that "renowned" modifies "Malik", not "Joe".


i don't think you really have to worry about these kinds of modifiers very much; experience shows that they are hardly tested at all on the real test.



HOWEVER
in the problem at hand, all of this is a non-issue; this modifier is altogether wrong, because there shouldn't be a modifier here.
it's not good enough for a comma + -ed or comma + -ing modifier just to describe the subject -- it must actually modify, or relate to, the content of the preceding clause.
e.g.
Joe spoke to the audience, blushing with nervousness --> this sentence makes sense
Joe spoke to the audience, standing 5'11" tall --> although this sentence is grammatically correct, it's total nonsense, because Joe's height has nothing to do with his speaking ability.
(this is also the reason why choice (a) of OG12 #26 is wrong -- it's not grammatically wrong, but it contains a modifier that's "modifying" something completely unrelated to it.)


the fact that the images "date from xxxx" and "were fashioned from xxxx" are two completely unrelated facts, so they should be placed in separate constructions (with "and"). it's inappropriate to use a modifier.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


个人觉得Ron的看法更可取,与V-ing做伴随状语表示前句对后句产生的影响相似,-ed也要考虑这层意思,不能说任意情况都使用-ed
回到这一题来说,surpassed by……修饰的是diabetes,并且不仅仅如此,正是“diabetes位列第三大致死原因”使得surpassed分句产生了意义,因为单单说diabetes被heart disease and cancer超越是没有意义的。
这个解释是否适用于OG上所有的题还有待考证,但是我觉得Ron的回答非常好,可以参考,有待NN参与讨论。
作者: yakev6    时间: 2012-12-1 02:55
摘自eGMAT的解释
Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of death, surpassed only by heart disease and cancer.

In this sentence, it will not make sense for verb-ed modifier to modify the preceding noun “death”. Death cannot be surpassed by anything. Hence, the verb-ed modifier is modifying noun phrase “the nation’s third leading cause of death”. Now the reference makes sense and the modifier establishes the fact this particular cause of death is “surpassed only by heart disease and cancer”.
Notice that “diabetes” is the “the nation’s third leading cause of death”. The verb “ranks” stands as “is” meaning “diabetes” = “the nation’s third leading cause of death”. Hence it is logical for the verb-ed modifier to modify “diabetes” also because it is the “the nation’s third leading cause of death”. Structurally, the verb-ed modifier is modifying the preceding noun phrase “the nation’s third leading cause of death”.
作者: abjure    时间: 2012-12-2 00:24
这里引用Ron(一个国外的instructor)对OG SC-56题的解释说法
OG12-56
Many of the earliest known images of Hindu deities in India date from the time of the Kushan Empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or Gandharan grey schist.
A Empire, fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
B Empire, fashioned from either the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
C Empire, either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or
D Empire and either fashioned from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from
E Empire and were fashioned either from the spotted sandstone of Mathura or from (E)


这里撇开either……or……的并列结构不谈,仅谈fashioned的修饰问题,不同的人有不同的看法:
prep语法笔记上说 -ed在逗号后,原则上修饰逗号前面的名词,至于是一个名词还是名词词组(例如C1 of C2)版主aeoluseros说看语义定


这里摘录Ron对这道题的看法:(推荐!)
“ved” modifier could refer either to the subject or to the noun before; you'll have to use context to figure it out.


e.g.
Joe turned to face the audience, flushed with fear --> correct sentence; modifier modifies "Joe"
Joe will fight his next bout against Malik, renowned for his fierce left jab --> correct sentence; in this kind of (somewhat ambiguous) construction, the usual convention is that "renowned" modifies "Malik", not "Joe".


i don't think you really have to worry about these kinds of modifiers very much; experience shows that they are hardly tested at all on the real test.



HOWEVER
in the problem at hand, all of this is a non-issue; this modifier is altogether wrong, because there shouldn't be a modifier here.
it's not good enough for a comma + -ed or comma + -ing modifier just to describe the subject -- it must actually modify, or relate to, the content of the preceding clause.
e.g.
Joe spoke to the audience, blushing with nervousness --> this sentence makes sense
Joe spoke to the audience, standing 5'11" tall --> although this sentence is grammatically correct, it's total nonsense, because Joe's height has nothing to do with his speaking ability.
(this is also the reason why choice (a) of OG12 #26 is wrong -- it's not grammatically wrong, but it contains a modifier that's "modifying" something completely unrelated to it.)


the fact that the images "date from xxxx" and "were fashioned from xxxx" are two completely unrelated facts, so they should be placed in separate constructions (with "and"). it's inappropriate to use a modifier.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


个人觉得Ron的看法更可取,与V-ing做伴随状语表示前句对后句产生的影响相似,-ed也要考虑这层意思,不能说任意情况都使用-ed
回到这一题来说,surpassed by……修饰的是diabetes,并且不仅仅如此,正是“diabetes位列第三大致死原因”使得surpassed分句产生了意义,因为单单说diabetes被heart disease and cancer超越是没有意义的。
这个解释是否适用于OG上所有的题还有待考证,但是我觉得Ron的回答非常好,可以参考,有待NN参与讨论。
-- by 会员 ash28 (2012/8/16 9:53:34)



这个解释,我觉得可以接受,
但是我觉得comma+ved老美习惯考你就近修饰前面的名词,因为ved不可以修饰clasue
假如ved 要仅仅修饰主语的话,直接把它放到句首做open modifer岂不是更好。

comma+ving习惯考你指代主语,且修饰从句
同理,假如是ving 仅仅修饰主语的话,也是放在句首做open modifer好了。

逻辑层面 当然ved/ving modifer当然要和修饰对象有关系了和make sense。
作者: Effyue    时间: 2012-12-2 01:32

作者: meiyw    时间: 2016-11-10 18:36
ash28 发表于 2012-8-16 09:53
这里引用Ron(一个国外的instructor)对OG SC-56题的解释说法OG12-56Many of the earliest known images of ...

学习了,很有启发作用。
作者: stephysit    时间: 2016-12-5 20:26
yakev6 发表于 2012-12-1 02:55
摘自eGMAT的解释Diabetes ranks as the nation’s third leading cause of death, surpassed only by heart ...

make sense
作者: Ginny呀    时间: 2017-3-5 12:00
ash28 发表于 2012-8-16 09:53
这里引用Ron(一个国外的instructor)对OG SC-56题的解释说法OG12-56Many of the earliest known images of ...

Mark一下!               
作者: immvp000    时间: 2017-10-24 01:24
我是勤劳的搬运工。我觉得GMATCLUB里的这个讲解非常全面详细:
https://gmatclub.com/forum/verb-ed-modifiers-vs-verb-ing-modifiers-125611.html

先总结一下:
comma V+ing: adverbial modifier, 修饰前面的整个clause
V+ing: noun modifier, 修饰就近的名词
V+ed: 无论前面有没有comma, 都修饰就近的名词

回过来看这道题,逗号前面从句的宾语不是death,是the nation's third leading cause of death,也就是diabetes,那就没有问题了

作者: 小可爱啊    时间: 2018-8-14 11:55
Mark一下!               
作者: 冲鸭冲鸭歆歆子    时间: 2021-11-29 16:24
感谢分享!               
作者: 冲鸭冲鸭歆歆子    时间: 2021-11-30 19:17
顶楼主!               




欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) Powered by Discuz! X3.3