同位语可以修饰句子吗

professorL · 发表于 2016-5-27 11:23:02

There are no legallimits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the size of monkfish that can becaught, a circumstance that contributes to their depletion through overfishing.

A. There are no legal limits, as there are for cod and haddock, on the sizeof monkfish that can be caught, a circumstance that contributes to theirdepletion through overfishing.

B. There are no legal limits on the size of monkfish that can be caught,unlike cod or haddock, a circumstance that contributes to depleting thembecause they are being overfished.

C. There are legal limits on the size of cod and haddock that can becaught, but not for monkfish, which contributes to its depletion throughoverfishing.

D. Unlike cod and haddock,there are no legal size limits on catching monkfish, which contributes to itsdepletion by being overfished. (A)

Unlike catching cod and haddock, there are no legalsize limits on catching monkfish, contributing to their depletion because theyare overfished.
[size=14.6667px]答案是a
我想问下a选项a circumstance that... 是同位语成分吧？有人知道为什么这里可以修饰整个句子？

Marlene1212 · 发表于 2016-5-27 13:32:18

同位语:
同位语由unrestricted adjectival phrase而来，同位语的修饰对象：名词或名词短语或代词
1）、同位结构的特征
(1)起修饰语的作用,一般用于修饰名词或名词短语；“解释的是整个名词，不是名短中某个词”，故同位语不是核心词修饰。
(2)必须对其修饰对象具有解释力；
(3)位置：名词前或名词后，一般在修饰对象的后面；
(4)不影响主谓一致（谓语应该和主语保持一致，而不是和同位语）；
2)、同位结构的形式
(1)名词性同位语：名词解释名词。（以下三种，第二个n.后可以跟修饰词）
i)N., n.;
ii)n., a/an + n.或a/an + n., n.;
iii)the + n., n.（前面的the + n 为同位结构）
(2)同位语从句：抽象名词（theory/evidence/belief/principle）+that 从句，that 从句对抽象名词进行具体化解释（注意与of 结构的区别），that从句部分才是同位语。That不可省略。不充当成分
(3)概括性同位语：用一个概括性的名词去概括前面的修饰对象：短语/句子，n. +that/doing/done...如果修饰句子，句首出现了连词，如because，就不能使用这种结构
(4)名词重复性同位结构：n,n（重复所修饰的名词）+that 定语从句
(5)代词代替性同位结构：n,one/ones+that 定语从句

这道题属于概括性同位语。

professorL · 发表于 2016-5-28 08:50:00

这和独立主格有什么区别吗？

ianwyb · 发表于 2016-11-15 18:29:16

Marlene1212 发表于 2016-5-27 13:32
同位语:
同位语由unrestricted adjectival phrase而来，同位语的修饰对象：名词或名词短语或代词
1）、同位 ...

那我想问一下下面这题：
The computer company has announced that it will purchase the color-printing division of a rival company for $950 million, which is part of a deal that will make it the largest manufacturer in the office color-printing market.
A million, which is part of a deal that will make
B million, a part of a deal that makes
C million, part of a deal making
D million as a part of a deal to make
E million as part of a deal that will make

答案是E，如果概括性同位语可以成立的话，那B选项中“a part of a deal”是不是也可以概括修饰‘purchase the color-printing division of a rival company for $950 million’ 这句话呢？

ianwyb · 发表于 2016-11-15 18:42:29

看到以前有个老贴，reachthesky同学回的很好，供参考：

Ron神认为只有抽象词作为同位语时能够修饰前面的一整个句子或者idea，而如果同位语是concrete名词的时候，只能修饰靠近的名词。这里part of a deal很明显是第二种，修饰的是前面的million dollars，而不是一整个purchase的过程。所以不同类，不正确。
相关帖子http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post35386.html#p35386

1984NY · 发表于 2018-10-18 15:10:10

感谢分享！

spicytaco · 发表于 2018-10-19 12:46:27

ianwyb 发表于 2016-11-15 18:42
看到以前有个老贴，reachthesky同学回的很好，供参考：

Ron神认为只有抽象词作为同位语时能够修饰前面的一 ...

同意！

在路上1321 · 发表于 2018-10-19 16:14:17

yammm · 发表于 2018-10-24 17:07:46

不可以

[SC悬赏令] 同位语可以修饰句子吗

本帖子中包含更多资源

所属分类: 下线版块

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()