关于Emily Dichinson's letters to Susan Huntington中AE选项的区别

cdbgin009 · 发表于 2013-12-13 06:10:11

Emily Dichinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyon else.
A. Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering
B. Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan's mariage to Emily's brother and ended shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber
C. Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's mariage to Emily's brother and that ends shortly before Emily's death in 1886 and outnumbering
D. Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's mariage to Emily's brother, ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, and outnumbering
E. Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's mariage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber

这个题目，我来说一下吧，找了这么多论坛，没有发现能够说服我的解释，而且从语义角度来理解，我自认为上了考场这种方法不靠谱

Following content is totally open to discuss. 核心内容是：把outnumber看成比较结构的标志，至于为什么可以这样类比，下面有解释

两个问题，第一为什么A不对，E对；第二，关于which的指代，which只能指代物，即就近指代离他最近的表示“物”的名词，而不能指代人，即使“人”离which最近

看第一个问题：outnumber, v. 数量多于...；比...多

那么我们可以把这句话看做是一个比较结构，而outnumber这里看作是一个比较结构的标志（曼哈顿中，exceed就可以作为比较结构的标志）

第一，首先明确，A没有硬性的语法错误，从语义上面理解这道题目，A也是能讲得通的，这和OG13中25不太一样，25的逗号+修饰成分因为now的存在，是一定不可以做结果状语的，只能做一个不必要的名词的修饰成分，就近修饰adulthood，这样修饰是不合逻辑的。

第二，但是，看outnumber后面是her letters to anyone else，主语E's letters to SHD，个人觉得这里实际上提示了一种较强的比较结构，这两个比较对象不论从结构上还是逻辑上，都很平行

第三，逗号+现代分词，这里做结果状语一点问题没有，我们这种英语是非母语的人从语义的角度区别不是很容易，虽然我也承认语义为王；

第四，既然做结果状语，那么逗号+outnumbering，首先作为动词的修饰成分，修饰主句谓语动词，其次，他还可以修饰主语名词，最后修饰整个句子；那么问题就出来了，这里面放着一个比较结构很明显，逻辑语意唯一，且没有语法错误的E，同时还有一个，同样没有语法错误，但是outnumbering...可修饰两种可比较成分（句子/主语）的A，哪个更合理呢？由于A中，outnumbering的两种修饰会有两种有微妙差别的解释--修饰整个句子，E这段时间一直写信，结果使得E对SHD的信的数量超过了E对其他人的；修饰主语，E对SHD的新超过了E对其他人的信--但E语义唯一，那么显然，E更好，但是A也不能被认为是错误的。

这不是在区分语义的重点上E比A更合适，而是在有两种语意的A和语意唯一E之间进行挑选，那么我们当然要选E；如果从语意重点的角度，那么我认为应该尊重原句，也就是A选项；但是从语意唯一的角度，E当之无愧是最好的。

同时这也能说明语意唯一的优先级要高于语意重点变化：试想，一个表达意思准确且唯一的句子好？还是一个可能带来不同理解的句子好呢？当然是前者，即使后者的重点在前者的表达中变成了非重点。

关于这个观点适用性：

可能有人会问是不是所有的逗号+现代分词做结果状语的时候都会存在这种修饰主语和整个主句会使得句意有微妙差别的现象呢？

不是。这个题目的核心在于outnumbering后面的内容与主语是极其平行的，正因为如此，才可以这样从比较结构，语意唯一的角度去考虑；否则，逗号加现代分词后面的内容变化，那么这种提示就不存在了；这种提示不存在了，那么这个观点自然就不适用了。

again, totally open to discuss with courtersy, please.

soulwangh · 发表于 2013-12-13 13:58:31

由于A中，outnumbering的两种修饰会有两种有微妙差别的解释--
1/修饰整个句子，E这段时间一直写信，结果使得E对SHD的信的数量超过了E对其他人的；
2/修饰主语，E对SHD的新超过了E对其他人的信--但E语义唯一，那么显然，E更好，但是A也不能被认为是错误的

。

Hi, nice analysis

However, the second instance is not available. Comma+Ving presenting at the end of sentence must have some meaning relationship with the VERB of the preceding clause：either immediate consequence of the main action or simultaneous and subordinate action to the main action.

cdbgin009 · 发表于 2013-12-13 23:49:15

yes, I should admit that there should be such a relationship you have described; however, the structure of a sentence "must" ensure that the sentence can present such a relationship, otherwise no one can understand or confirm that there is such a relationship. What I said above aims to clarify that such a comparison structure could assure only on clear meaning, whereas what you said above is concerning logic, which is not my point; Both of them should be consistent

Aprilhwj · 发表于 2015-8-26 17:30:46

感谢分享！

关于Emily Dichinson's letters to Susan Huntington中AE选项的区别

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()