ChaseDream

标题: 修正千行excel碰到的一个很蛋疼的解释！OG12 30 [打印本页]

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-18 16:54
标题: 修正千行excel碰到的一个很蛋疼的解释！OG12 30
引用baby姐：刚看到Stacey@Manhattan针对"comma+v-ing"举了个非常好的例子来阐释，分享下
Source: http://www.beatthegmat.com/mba/2012/01/28/modifiers-and-meaning-a-gmatprep-sentence-correction-problem-2

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.
Note that I wouldn't say:
I fell and broke my ankle, slipping on the ice.
Why not?
--> 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.

再来是OG12 #30的例子：
我的excel上当时就摘抄了一个instructor的解释：
Try to read the sentence aloud with “protecting” and see if it makes sense:

…, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, protecting warriors against enemy arrows and spears.

Not sure if it sounds right? Try flipping the two phrases（这个可行么？？？？？） around like we did earlier by putting the descriptive phrase first and see if that makes sense:

Protecting warriors against enemy arrows and spears, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment.

这开始就开启了我一下午的困惑：manhattan的第4版中明确说到svo，ving和ving，svo这个ving的位置是可以互换的

但这样不会改变句子的意思么？一个是作为adverbial modifier一个是作为 noun或者verb modifier
看看OG12 30题
For members of the seventeenth-century Ashanti
nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden
frames were essential items of military equipment,
a method to protect warriors against enemy arrows
and spears.
(A) a method to protect
(B) as a method protecting
(C) protecting
(D) as a protection of
(E) to protect

放在句末protecting表示的是一个结果（essential-----导致了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）

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？

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-18 16:57
自己顶一个，求斑斑NN

作者: abjure 时间: 2012-8-18 18:30
搬板凳听讲座，帮顶

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-18 19:42
ving，svo和svo，ving这个两个结构的意思是截然不同

但是，有一个结构的确是可以filp的

ving，svo和 s，ving，vo

这时为了方便理解，ving是可以提到主语前面的

坐等拍砖...

作者: clover928 时间: 2012-8-18 20:07
DD,这一题是一个主系表结构的啊，也就是说这个shield就是essential item，protecting无论放在前还是放在后都是会修饰这个shield的啊

mgsc应该有说的。

（我不知道我有没有回答到你的问题。。。）

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-18 20:35
我知道是主系表但是放在前面就是noun或者verb modifier
放在后面是adverbial modifier 我觉得意思有重大区别啊
如果按照baby姐的那个slipping的例子

作者: clover928 时间: 2012-8-18 21:03

我知道是主系表但是放在前面就是noun或者verb modifier
放在后面是adverbial modifier 我觉得意思有重大区别啊
如果按照baby姐的那个slipping的例子

-- by 会员 DUKB24 (2012/8/18 20:35:01)

baby姐姐按个slipping的例子是有重大区别，因为ing，svo是修饰主语，但是svo，ving可以表伴随，这时就出现意思的重大区别

主系表结构貌似只会是noun modifier啊
A=B，protecting，这个“=”好不可能会伴随着protecting吧？

这个是我在prep语法笔记找的。。
“1) 如果前面是主系表结构，由于系动词是一个状态不存在“被伴随”，但是V-ing结构依然修饰的是整个主系表结构，所以后面的V-ing结构也可以被解读为修饰前面的名词成分—主语（如果宾语是名词，也一同修饰，因为主系表结构中主语和宾语所指是同一事物--见OG10-39, OG11-24中对正确选项C的解释）。

”

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-19 00:10
再顶

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-19 00:43
在manhattan发帖了。。坐等回答http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/noun-modifier-vs-adverbial-modifier-please-clarify-t16366.html?sid=ef3e51a6bfc8e8a19caf7b6b2deb46c3

作者: 晨依Jacqueline 时间: 2012-8-19 13:22
Up~~~
btw DD在manhattan的名字可真亮啊。。。

作者: miss绿光 时间: 2012-8-20 00:27
我是觉得（不知道你是不是要问这个）：
#1 SVO,ing 这种情况下ing只能修饰整句，不能修饰逗号前面的名字（Ron's lecture里面说过）
#2 不是完整SVO, ing。那么ing修饰逗号前面的名词。（Ron's lecture）
#3 ing, SVO的话我觉得就比较灵活了，可以修饰主语和整句，我觉得更倾向于修饰主语（也就是说，从意思上是S,v-ing, VO），如果修饰整句的话放在后面更好，也从意思的接受顺序上更好让人理解，要是把结果放在句首多膈应。

又看了一下你的帖子，你好像不是问这个。。。

作者: cavashawn 时间: 2012-8-20 00:48
protecting 修饰shields ，因为were作谓语的主句和clause是两个不相关的成分，不是目的。逻辑主语不同，不是伴随的状态，只有作后置定语才能解释得通！！

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-20 11:42

我是觉得（不知道你是不是要问这个）：
#1 SVO,ing 这种情况下ing只能修饰整句，不能修饰逗号前面的名字（Ron's lecture里面说过）
#2 不是完整SVO, ing。那么ing修饰逗号前面的名词。（Ron's lecture）
#3 ing, SVO的话我觉得就比较灵活了，可以修饰主语和整句，我觉得更倾向于修饰主语（也就是说，从意思上是S,v-ing, VO），如果修饰整句的话放在后面更好，也从意思的接受顺序上更好让人理解，要是把结果放在句首多膈应。

又看了一下你的帖子，你好像不是问这个。。。

-- by 会员 miss绿光 (2012/8/20 0:27:08)

嗯，我问的是whether the flip of this structure will change the meaning of the sentence

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-22 09:16
没有人？？？

作者: abjure 时间: 2012-8-22 09:50

Up~~~
btw DD在manhattan的名字可真亮啊。。。

-- by 会员晨依Jacqueline (2012/8/19 13:22:16)

还好我不是中午吃饭的时候看到这个名字。。哈哈哈！！！有才。

不知道以后会不会成为一个新的英语单词，就像“功夫” ，“孔子” etc。。。

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-22 21:08

Up~~~
btw DD在manhattan的名字可真亮啊。。。

-- by 会员晨依Jacqueline (2012/8/19 13:22:16)

还好我不是中午吃饭的时候看到这个名字。。哈哈哈！！！有才。

不知道以后会不会成为一个新的英语单词，就像“功夫” ，“孔子” etc。。。

-- by 会员 abjure (2012/8/22 9:50:50)

名字是用来引起instructor注意的，可惜国外的应该看不懂

作者: 铁板神猴 时间: 2012-8-31 18:37

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...

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-8-31 18:53

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

作者: 铁板神猴 时间: 2012-9-1 19:57

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.

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-9-1 20:29

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)

-- 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

作者: 铁板神猴 时间: 2012-9-2 12:10

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)

-- by 会员铁板神猴 (2012/9/1 19:57:19)

-- 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.)

作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-9-5 20:23

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。

作者: 铁板神猴 时间: 2012-9-6 11:55

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？

作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-9-6 13:57
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。

作者: 铁板神猴 时间: 2012-9-6 16:28

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.

作者: 女王的肥皂 时间: 2012-9-7 09:07

(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。

作者: DUKB24 时间: 2012-9-7 09:12

(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

作者: 铁板神猴 时间: 2012-9-7 09:36
discussing inspires minds

作者: Charline_chang 时间: 2019-1-24 08:46
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。

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