[求助]非限制性定语从句指代问题

114.   From the bark of the paper birch tree the Menomini crafted a canoe about twenty feet long and two feet wide, with small ribs and rails of cedar, which could carry four persons or eight hundred pounds of baggage so light that a person could easily portage it around impeding rapids.
(A) baggage so light
(B) baggage being so light
(C) baggage, yet being so light
(D) baggage, and so light (E)
(E) baggage yet was so light 

 而定语从句可以跳跃修饰, 也可以就近, 关键看逻辑意思.

虽然这是个非限定性定语从句, 但我认为它是代词按逻辑意思指代最经典的例子!
  除了以上涉及的, 我没有发现两者之间的其他区别.

以上是引用熏衣紫草的帖子

Sunspots, vortices of gas associated with strong electromagnetic activity, are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun’s poles or equator.
   选A

(A) are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on
   

(B) are visible as dark spots that never have been sighted on the surface of the Sun
   

(C) appear on the surface of the Sun as dark spots although never sighted at
   

(D) appear as dark spots on the surface of the Sun, although never having been sighted at

(E) appear as dark spots on the Sun’s surface, which have never been sighted on
  

而这道题Ｅ不能选，ＯＧ给出的解释是ＷＨＩＣＨ应该ＩＭＭＥＤＩＡＴＥＬＹ　ＦＯＬＬＯＷ他的指代对象，也就是说ＷＨＩＣＨ不能指代ＳＵＮＰＯＴＳ～～～～～～～～～我有点搞晕了，到底什么时候能指代，什么时候不能指代呢，这两个句子有什么区别呢

没人理我吗??顶顶

=。=

恩这个要看的，当有更加严重的错误时候，which的跳跃指代（一定要能够被理解）可以接受

感谢楼上回帖；我还是菜鸟，我是这样理解的;

一：也就是说114.   From the bark of the paper birch tree the Menomini crafted a canoe about twenty feet long and two feet wide, with small ribs and rails of cedar, which could carry four persons or eight hundred pounds of baggage so light that a person could easily portage it around impeding rapids.

如果ＷＨＩＣＨ指代ＲＩＢ　或者ＲＡＩＬ时候有严重的逻辑错误咯？

Sunspots, vortices of gas associated with strong electromagnetic activity, are visible as dark spots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun’s poles or equator　　(E) appear as dark spots on the Sun’s surface, which have never been sighted on　而这个ＷＨＩＣＨ指代ＳＵＲＦＡＣＥ是可以被理解的？但却歪曲的全句的意思，所以不能选　

或者二；还是你的意思是说Ｅ选项有其他更加严重的错误？？但是ＯＧ上只给出了这一个解释，

Ｅ　the relative pronoun which should immediately follow its referent ;here which illogically follows surface ,and its intended referent,either sunspots or dark spots,becomes unclear

那么若就近指代逻辑不对,于是跳跃,但只要前面有两个或以上语法上可以指代的对象,是不是就是指代不清呢

还是跳跃修饰依旧要判断逻辑意思

当判断逻辑意思的时候如何才算逻辑正确呢

比如一个which要指代,就近不行,而前面另有2个名词,都是物(不是人)which 语法上都能指代,但句子意思表明名词2的逻辑不对,即明显指代名词1,这种情况下是不是指代不清

我觉得,最好不用代词指代来作为解题的主要依据,最好能先排除主要,就是优先级比较高的错误,剩下的答案,如果有代词指代错误的,才详细看.

即使是跳跃修饰,也要看逻辑意思的;总的来说,即使语法正确,但逻辑不对还是错的;而判断逻辑意思就要看句子是否符合常理,解释通顺.这样要具体问题具体分析才更好地解释,因为没有一套固定地理论适应所有的情况的,也不要寻求一套固定的解法将所有问题都解决掉,因为一个用法,在一个题目里可能正确,但另外一个题目里就是错误的,所以版主说,答案是比出来的,只有相对的正确,而没有绝对的正确.

7楼的还有一个问题, 比如一个which要指代,就近不行,而前面另有2个名词,都是物(不是人)which 语法上都能指代,但句子意思表明名词2的逻辑不对,即明显指代名词1,这种情况下是不是指代不清

这也是错误的.因为即使你明白应该指代谁,但因为语法上都可以修饰,也就是存在了模糊修饰的问题,也是错的.