问个GWD-28-Q24里的问题······ - ChaseDream

if you take out "who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers", the following structure will make no sense:

a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, with federal prosecutors

-- by 会员 beihorse (2012/12/5 1:32:25)

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.

A.charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were

B.charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being

C.charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were

D.charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being(E)

E.charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were

这题选E，毫无问题，问题是解释B选项who were多余，应该省略；with federal prosecutors who were是定语结构，非限定性修饰就近的名词a misdemeanor charge，逻辑不符；独立主格修饰介词短语里面的从句，awkward；
而PREP语法里面明确提出，2)with 型独立主格,与主句形成紧密的逻辑联系,形式为:

由“with＋宾语＋宾补”构成的复合结构，在句中可作状语，表示伴随，修饰邻近分句主语

with独立主格是修饰前面主句的，而这个B选项里面则说这个WITH的结构是定语结构，修饰 a misdemeanor charge，不是矛盾了吗？

-- by 会员 a30024300 (2012/12/4 23:57:23)

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.

A.charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were

B.charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being

C.charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were

D.charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being(E)

E.charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were

这题选E，毫无问题，问题是解释B选项who were多余，应该省略；with federal prosecutors who were是定语结构，非限定性修饰就近的名词a misdemeanor charge，逻辑不符；独立主格修饰介词短语里面的从句，awkward；
而PREP语法里面明确提出，2)with 型独立主格,与主句形成紧密的逻辑联系,形式为:

由“with＋宾语＋宾补”构成的复合结构，在句中可作状语，表示伴随，修饰邻近分句主语

with独立主格是修饰前面主句的，而这个B选项里面则说这个WITH的结构是定语结构，修饰 a misdemeanor charge，不是矛盾了吗？

-- by 会员 a30024300 (2012/12/4 23:57:23)

LZ要注意的是，B选项这里的with是withth+名词的一般with短语，不是你所说的复合结构，一般的with短语可做定语也可做状语。做定语时只修饰前面的名词，而且根本没逻辑上的主谓关系。
给个例子吧：
I like eating the mooncakes with eggs.

如果你要问with前面的逗号的问题，我只能回答你多数情况下，with结构无论做定语还是伴随状语或方式状语，放在句子后面，都不用逗号隔开。（但如果为了便于阅读或结构清晰，在不影响逻辑意思下，也可以用逗号）

希望这个解释能帮到你。

-- by 会员 kiwifoodtown (2012/12/5 14:16:39)

prep语法笔记上注明
注：with型独立主格并不包括with+n.+定语从句和n.+定语从句
这个形式做的是非限定性修饰前面名词的定语
相当于n,with+n 或者n.n+that概括性同位语
你这个题就是这个情况 with federal prosecutors who were

-- by 会员 flonacui (2012/12/5 20:39:15)