OG verbal SC #45

阿霖 · 发表于 2016-8-17 16:59:54

The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
(A)The nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote the only eyewitness account of the
great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian Tacitus.
(B)To the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder wrote two
letters, being the only eyewitness accounts of the great eruption of
Vesuvius.
(C) The only eyewitness account is in two letters by the nephew of Pliny the
Elder writing to the historian Tacitus an account of the great eruption
of Vesuvius.
(D)Writing the only eyewitness account, Pliny the Elder’s nephew accounted
for the great eruption of Vesuvius in two letters to the historian
Tacitus.
(E)In two letters to the historian Tacitus, the nephew of Pliny the Elder
wrote the only eyewitness account of the great eruption of Vesuvius.

答案是E，OG说B错误的原因是being the only eyewitness...修饰的是the nephew。但是我想问being...这句话难道不是修饰前面的名词letter么？
求大神解答。

咖啡印象 · 发表于 2016-8-17 17:58:17

“逗号+ ing分词”短语：

1）修饰前面的句子，表示伴随或结果；
2）做插入语，位于句中就近修饰名词，是非限定性修饰语。不过，想要用非限定性修饰语修饰宾语最好用定语从句，用“逗号+ing分词”容易引起歧义；
3）放在一个句子(包括从句)的句末，修饰前面句子的主语，而不是就近修饰句子的宾语。——就是这题考的

Annabellgao · 发表于 2016-8-17 19:18:13

A哪里有问题么

vi.len · 发表于 2016-8-17 19:41:03

Annabellgao 发表于 2016-8-17 19:18
A哪里有问题么

OG上面解释是Asuggests that the eruption of V took place in the letters themselves。
但是我并不能理解。 wrote the only eyewitness account (of the great eruption of V) in two letter.括号里的做account 的定语。感觉没问题。

vi.len · 发表于 2016-8-17 19:42:48

楼楼 B中的开头的To the historian Tacitus 也不对，翻译过来就是对于历史学家T来说，blablabla... 和整句话的逻辑不符合

[SC悬赏令] OG verbal SC #45

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()