[E]OG-141，请指点！

excellent · 发表于 2004-1-27 09:07:00

141. Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same, all patients receiving hearts or other organs must take antirejection drugs for the rest of their lives.
A.Unlike transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same
B.Besides transplants involving identical twins with the same genetic endowment
C.Unless the transplant involves identical twins who have the same genetic endowment
D.Aside from a transplant between identical twins with the same genetic endowment
E.Other than transplants between identical twins, whose genetic endowment is the same

请问with和who在修饰人时有何不同？OG解释说，In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical.Choice C, the best answer, solves these problems by using a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins.

delldell · 发表于 2004-1-27 23:13:00

C 中的定语从句不是NON-RESTRICTIVE呀

swiffer · 发表于 2004-1-29 05:42:00

identical twins with the same genetic endowment含有“长相相似且基因相同”的意思，排除了那些长得不是很象，但基因仍然相同的双生子。而who引导的是非限制的定语从句，没有这层含义。

delldell · 发表于 2004-1-29 13:30:00

请问SWIFFER你是怎么看出它是非限定性定语的

晓晓 · 发表于 2004-1-29 16:49:00

以下是引用swiffer在2004-1-29 5:42:00的发言：
identical twins with the same genetic endowment含有“长相相似且基因相同”的意思

有这个意思吗？
个人认为：identical twins with the same genetic endowment 具有相同遗传基因的同卵双胞胎
但是由于identical twins 本意就是：a pair of children or animals born from one egg of the mother and usually looking extreamly alike，不需要通过限制性定语从句来进一步限定其基因的相同
而who既可以带限制性定从，也可以带非限制性定从，所以选择who将其视作非限制性定从更加符合原文意思，而且在语法上也更加合理。

请指教！

swiffer · 发表于 2004-1-30 08:00:00

那你们怎么理解OG的解释：In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical.Choice C, the best answer, solves these problems by using a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins？

晓晓 · 发表于 2004-1-30 10:13:00

以下是引用swiffer在2004-1-30 8:00:00的发言：
那你们怎么理解OG的解释：In B and D the expression identical twins with the same genetic endowment wrongly suggests that only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical.Choice C, the best answer, solves these problems by using a nonrestrictive clause beginning with who to describe the characteristic attributed to all identical twins？

正如我上面的解释：限制性定从将对象限制在部分的范围内，即是only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical
而实际上根据identical twin pairs 的本意就已经包含了being genetically identical的意思，也就是说all identical twin pairs are genetically identical
所以，用非限制性定从才符合原文的意思，就是即使将定从删去，也不会影响原句意思

不知道这样的解释是否清晰？！请指教

swiffer · 发表于 2004-1-31 00:37:00

以下是引用晓晓在2004-1-30 10:13:00的发言：

正如我上面的解释：限制性定从将对象限制在部分的范围内，即是only some identical twin pairs are genetically identical
而实际上根据identical twin pairs 的本意就已经包含了being genetically identical的意思，也就是说all identical twin pairs are genetically identical
所以，用非限制性定从才符合原文的意思，就是即使将定从删去，也不会影响原句意思

不知道这样的解释是否清晰？！请指教

我觉得你的想法给了我一点启发，但我不是完全同意。identical twins本意中也许是包括了genetically identical的意思，但肯定不是专指基因方面，可能还有指外貌、性格方面的相同、相似的意思。所以需要加以特别的指出，这就是who引导的定从的作用。决不是即使删去，也不影响原句的意思的。with作限定词含有从大的概念里面指出特定子集的意思。如：I like men with blue eyes，从men（大概念）指出那些有蓝眼睛的（子集）。所以，这里如果用with的话，就会造成印象——twins with the same genetic endowment只是twins的一个子集。

不知道我说清楚了没有，我觉得多讨论讨论对深入理解题目很有帮助。

[E]OG-141，请指点！

[E]OG-141，请指点！

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()