ChaseDream

标题: 比较省略的疑问 [打印本页]

作者: zhuangzhilingy 时间: 2013-6-27 20:37
标题: 比较省略的疑问

关于比较有些问题需要和大家探讨一下。首先，我认为比较的难点就在于后半部分的省略。选项都是省略了句子的某些成分。我想之所以能省略，是因为为了使句子简洁，省略了和前面一样的部分。那么我们做题时，针对某个选项如果把后面部分的主谓宾补全再根据逻辑意思判断，如果符合逻辑意思通顺，那么这个选项肯定是正确的了。我想把句子的所有成分补全了大家也就能理解了。大家总结的比较题的做题规则是“比较对象的内容，时态关系，逻辑含义均要对等”。再根据baby姐的大道至简的原则，我把比较总结为，补全句子，判断逻辑。

不知大家是否同意我上面的观点。如同意，往下看。

有些改错题的正确选项我补全成分后（或者是不知道该怎么补全成分）感觉逻辑不对，想请教一下大家。

举例：OG10-19. In addition to having more protein than wheat does, the protein in rice is higher quality than that in wheat, with more of the amino acids essential to the human diet.

(A) the protein in rice is higher quality than that in

(B) rice has protein of higher quality than that in

(D) rice protein is higher in quality than it is in

(E) rice has a protein higher in quality than

首先根据前面的having排除A、C、D选项，且D项中than后的it指代rice protein，补全成分后是rice protein is higher in quality than rice protein is in wheat, 明显逻辑不对。E项其实我感觉也可以吧，根据规则前面有主谓宾的，如果要比较主语的话，后面最好是有主语和谓语。但是根据意思判断，这个选项即使没有谓语也不会产生歧义。B项的话，than后面补全句子成分是什么呢？感觉有点奇怪。

A large rise in the number of housing starts in the coming year should boost new construction dollars by several billion dollars, making the construction industry’s economic health much more robust than it was five years ago. 这句中than后面还原是什么样子呢？

Florida will gain another quarter-million jobs this year alone, many of them in such high-paying fields as electronics and banking, making the state’s economy far more diversified than it was ten years ago.

According to recent studies comparing the nutritional value of meat from wild animals and meat from domesticated animals, wild animals have less total fat than [that of] livestock fed on grain and more of a kind of fat thought to be good for cardiac health.

The White House is pushing for bigger reductions than are favored by the military.

这个句子比较的部分还原后是什么呢？

OG10- 198. Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than they had in their previous campaigns, it had provisions for only twenty-four days.

(A) they had in their previous campaigns

(B) their previous campaigns had had

(D) in their previous campaigns

(E) for any previous campaign 正确。这里补全句子后是什么呢？

作者: kiwifoodtown 时间: 2013-6-28 10:14
太乱，看着好累，先说下OG10- 198。
先说下句子大概要表达的意思是说拿破仑军队进入俄国带的补给比他们为以前任何一次战役带的补给要多的多。那么，我们就很清楚了，比较的主体应该是两次战役所带的补给。所以，说穿了就是entered Russia with supplies和supplies for any previous campaign 相比较。前者比后者far more.

作者: 云游 时间: 2013-6-28 17:27
Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than are fungi, in the form of carbon dioxide, and converting it to energy-rich sugars.

A. Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than are fungi,
B. Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi,
C. Plants are more efficient than fungi at acquiring carbon,
D. Plants, more efficient than fungi at acquiring carbon,
E. Plants acquire carbon more efficiently than fungi,

针对第一个，楼主看下这一题。关于比较中的省略我也比较困惑，B选项是错误选项，OG的给出的解释是会产生plants acquire fungi的歧义。但是我当时就在想，此处为什么不能是省略呢？

作者: 云游 时间: 2013-6-28 17:32
”plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi由于有了at acquiring，它把优先获得了than fungi的修饰；
句子变成了比起fungi来plants 在获取carbon的时候更高效（plants 获取carbon比获取fungi高效“

上面适合enkylios兄探讨的时，enkylios给的解释，语法上来说，at acquiring优先获得了than fungi的修饰，所以错误~而此处的in quality是否也是优先获得了than wheat的修饰所以错误呢？

其实对于修饰（modifier）manhattan中一直有强调一点，就是要靠近修饰成分，此处是否也是这个问题？希望能和楼主继续探讨下这个问题~

作者: zhuangzhilingy 时间: 2013-6-28 20:23

kiwifoodtown 发表于 2013-6-28 10:14
太乱，看着好累，先说下OG10- 198。
先说下句子大概要表达的意思是说拿破仑军队进入俄国带的补给比他们为以 ...

其实意思仔细看也能看出来。你说的这些我也能理解。但是我就是想验证一下是否总结的那个规则适用于每一个比较题。如果不适应，那就是应该有新的题型。这个题，for any previous campaign明显是省略了一些成分的。那么补全是什么呢？按照我前面说的，省略了的都是和前面一样的。for any previous campaign只是个介词短语，那么应该补齐主谓宾。最后成了than Napoleon's army entered Russia with supplies for any previous campaign, it……。这样感觉不对啊。原文意思是比较进入俄国时带的补给和在以前任一一次战役时带的补给。这里我改了后似乎是拿破仑军队多次进入俄国，这次进入俄国时带的补给比以前任意一次进入俄国时带的补给都多。
所以我就想把比较题总结为一个先是在语法层面上的东西，然后再通过逻辑意思去判断。如果纯粹没有语法去支持，而是只凭意思去判断的话，显得没有章法，让人很难下手去做，感觉是每道题都是一个新类型一样。

作者: zhuangzhilingy 时间: 2013-6-28 20:39

云游发表于 2013-6-28 17:32
”plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi由于有了at acquiring，它把优先获得了than f ...

其实你说的这个题在B选项中用我说的那个方法就是会产生歧义的，所以是错误选项。
B项补齐主谓会有两种。
1,Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than plants are at acquiring fungi 这里是比较Plants在获取不同的的东西
2, Plants are more efficient at acquiring carbon than fungi are at acquiring carbon. 这里比较的是plants和fungi在获取相同的东西。
如果B选项在fungi后面加个are就肯定不会产生歧义那就肯定是上面第2种意思了。
这也就是大家通常说的那个比较规则，在前面有主谓宾时，如果逻辑意思上是想比较主语，那么比较的后半部分就最好把谓语添加上，不要省去。如果只是主谓比较，那么后面部分的就可以只有主语。其实这个规则再进一步概括和提炼我想就是我说的那个，补齐成分，看逻辑意思是否合理。

作者: 云游 时间: 2013-6-29 17:05

zhuangzhilingy 发表于 2013-6-28 20:39
其实你说的这个题在B选项中用我说的那个方法就是会产生歧义的，所以是错误选项。
B项补齐主谓会有两种。
...

谢谢，继续请教下哈：

首先是关于那个我举得的例子，OG给的解释就是说这句话表达的就是你给的补充完句子后的第一种理解。OG并不是说这句话会产生理解的歧义，所以我在想，有些时候比较的对象是否也需要从语法的结构上进行判断呢？

然后在请教问一下，楼主这里的OG10-19,E如果补齐成分，是否也会产生两理解：
1. Rice has a protein higher in quality than wheat (does)
2. Rice has a protein higher in quality than (in) wheat
楼主认为第二个情况不存在，只是因为逻辑上不存在这种可能吗？

以上，谢谢。

作者: zhuangzhilingy 时间: 2013-6-29 20:16

云游发表于 2013-6-29 17:05
谢谢，继续请教下哈：

首先是关于那个我举得的例子，OG给的解释就是说这句话表达的就是你给的补充完句子 ...

“有些时候比较的对象是否也需要从语法的结构上进行判断呢？”这个你和我想到一块儿，我在5楼回答另一个同学的帖子时也说过了。对于比较题，先根据语法还原句子，再根据逻辑意思判断。
你给的E项的第2个解释，如你所说，确实只是逻辑错误的问题。我观察，几乎所有的比较题，语法上除了比较时态、单复数外，其他都是比较逻辑意思的。而且比较逻辑意思的占大多数。

作者: 云游 时间: 2013-6-29 21:01

zhuangzhilingy 发表于 2013-6-29 20:16
“有些时候比较的对象是否也需要从语法的结构上进行判断呢？”这个你和我想到一块儿，我在5楼回答另一个 ...

恩，那么按照你的顺序：“补全句子”-->"判断逻辑"
这个意思是：
1. 我们语法上补全句子，通过逻辑判断得出合理的“比较对象”，如果比较对象不合理，我们应该自动排除这种比较的存在。
2. 我们语法上补全了句子，通过逻辑判断其比较对象，如果存在多种比较对象且逻辑上都合理，我们认为有歧义，进而认为该选项为错误选项。

不知道我这样的理解对吗？

作者: zhuangzhilingy 时间: 2013-6-30 21:02

云游发表于 2013-6-29 21:01
恩，那么按照你的顺序：“补全句子”-->"判断逻辑"
这个意思是：
1. 我们语法上补全句子，通过逻辑判断得 ...

你的比较对象加着引号，我不太理解你的意思。但是我想不管怎样，最终说一句话都是要表达一个意思的，当补全句子后，根据上下问的背景判断出到底要表达哪种意思。曼哈顿上有一个很经典的例句，
A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest as fast as a cheetah.
This sentence is ambiguous because we cannot be sure what is being compared to what. Do we mean that the wildebeest is as fast as a cheetah?
Correction (a): A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest that runs as fast as a cheetah.
Or do we mean that the leopard catches the cheetah?
Correction (b): A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest as fast as it can a cheetah.
Or do we mean that the cheetah catches the wildebeest?
Correction (c): A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest as fast as a cheetah can.
In this last version can stands for can catch a wildebeest, and the sentence compares the two clauses A leopard cannot catch a wildebeest and a cheetah can (catch a wildebeest). For the sake of concision, it is better to say can rather than the full can catch a wildebeest. Likewise, in correction (b), we can omit the verb catch.
原句补全句子后有三种情况，a是比较宾语，b意思是比较宾语，但意思不同，c是比较主语。意思上也都讲得过去。这时就要文章的背景去判断到底是需要比较什么了。

作者: zhuangzhilingy 时间: 2013-7-1 19:50
顶,ddddddddddddddddddddd

作者: zhuangzhilingy 时间: 2013-7-1 22:28
顶,ddddddddddddddddddddd

作者: enkyklios 时间: 2013-7-2 18:34

帮zhuang兄弟顶，顺便说一下我的看法

我认为可以反过来，应该是判断逻辑然后补全句子，因为一个句子需要怎么补全取决于逻辑。
关于第一题我的看法跟大多数人的看法太不一致我有专门的分析，
关于最后一题；显然不能补成多次进入俄国。事实上应该补成 Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than were taken with them for any previous campaign
对比另一句；The White House is pushing for bigger reductions than are favored by the military.

注意；这时这个句子到了这个程度再也不能补全了，如果试图强行补全主语。语法学家们说这在逻辑上自相矛盾，在句法上经不起检验，语义上经不起分析。（呵呵他们的原话）

关于大道至简，我觉得到不如说是奥卡姆剃刀，没有必要的东西，我们一概去掉，
但是在较的时候这个语法现像还是需要多分类讨论才行。因为省略其实有两种有的是可以补上what,或者it.
例如；he drove faster than was wise. 我们就可以补成he drove faster than it was wise .
必须要区分开这两种现像，不然至简会带来混乱

作者: zhuangzhilingy 时间: 2013-7-2 20:48

enkyklios 发表于 2013-7-2 18:34
帮zhuang兄弟顶，顺便说一下我的看法

你补全了这一句 Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than were taken with them for any previous campaign。意思上比较的是supplies。supplies在前面部分是副词修饰成分with far more supplies 的一部分，而supplies根据意思分析在后面部分中是主语成分，后面部分根据句意应该还原为The supplies were taken with them for any previous campaign。可以看到比较前后的主谓宾完全不一样。

我似乎悟出点什么东西了。我以前以为比较的后半部分省略的部分是和前面是一样的语法成分所对应的单词，现在看来省略的只是同样的单词而已，并不一定省略的是语法成分上对应的和前面是一样的单词和。比如 Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than for any previous campaign , it had provisions for only twenty-four days.这是原题中的正确答案。按我以前的理解，省略的是和前面是一样的语法成分所对应的单词，than后面只有for any previous campaign。只有一个介词短语。应该把省略的主谓宾补齐，把前面的主谓宾照样搬过来，变成了than Napoleon's army entered Russia with supplies for any previous campaign, 所以意思上变化了。

这么看来至少是在这个题里，做题时先是找出句子真正的意思，即到底要比较什么。意思是拿破仑军队进入俄国带的补给比他们为以前任何一次战役带的补给要多的多。然后根据这个意思在选项中找语法上合适的句子。

(A) they had in their previous campaigns

(B) their previous campaigns had had

(D) in their previous campaigns

(E) for any previous campaign 正确。 A、B、C都是单复数不一致的错误，因为前面的army是单数所以后面不能用复数。D的错误在于用了in，没有用for合适。E项虽“省略过度”，应该是 than were taken with them for any previous campaign。把were taken with them省略掉了，但是如不省略的话感觉题目难度一下子小了许多，省略后意思也没有变化，所以E正确。

结合这一句The White House is pushing for bigger reductions than are favored by the military。这是我从有道字典的权威例句里搜到的，来源于国外的报纸期刊。这句仿照上面那道prep的题也可以写为The White House is pushing for bigger reductions than by the military。

彻底清楚了，感觉是醍醐灌顶啊。

作者: enkyklios 时间: 2013-7-2 21:16

zhuangzhilingy 发表于 2013-7-2 20:48
你补全了这一句 Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than were taken with ...

关于A没有单复数的问题恐怕也不好，A应该是下边这句话的省略
Although Napoleon's army entered Russia with far more supplies than they had （enteried russia with） in any previous compaign

这句仿照上面那道prep的题也可以写为The White House is pushing for bigger reductions than by the military

这个我觉得不能省略成这样。supplies for previous compaign 很通顺，但是reductions by milltary . 我们没有办法理解，至少没有办法理解成原来句子的意思

作者: zhuangzhilingy 时间: 2013-7-3 20:01

enkyklios 发表于 2013-7-2 21:16
关于A没有单复数的问题恐怕也不好，A应该是下边这句话的省略
Although Napoleon's army entered Russia wi ...

拿破仑这道题是OG10里的题，只是OG给的解释。If than is followed by a clause referring to army, the subject of that clause must be singular (it). Furthermore, the verb of that clause will need to be in the past perfect form (had had) because it refers to a time before the simple past of entered. Finally, the preposition for is more precise than in because supplies are gathered for an upcoming campaign. Choices A and C incorrectly use the plural they and the simple past had. Moreover, A uses the less precise in. Choices D and E wisely dispense with the full clause and use a simple prepositional phrase. D, however, uses the imprecise in and the plural their. Only E, the best choice, avoids all the errors mentioned above.
The White House is pushing for bigger reductions than by the military。这句话改成这样意思上是有点模糊。我不只不过是想更好的学习并利用一下上次分析的那个结论罢了。看来还是语义最重要。

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