OG13 SC66题（OG12 65）句尾", V-ing"做从句伴随状语or做后置定语，你们同意哪一种说法？

●原句：In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches,

在一项防止东岸沙滩受侵蚀的计划中，

the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer,

陆军工程队建议：建造与海岸平行的，高于水平面六英尺的石造防波堤作为缓冲

so that it absorbs the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

如此一来（这个防波堤）便可以吸收碎浪的能量并保护海岸（不受侵蚀）。

正确句子：In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

●我认为是modify the previous clause。

●这个题我在第一遍做OG的时候，看到了protecting，很容易就选对了。

但是当我完成了OG第一遍，和Manhattan SC整个的复习后，由于对V-ing phrase有了语法上体系化的理解，反倒看到absorbing就觉得肯定不对（既不能logically apply to the subject of the main clause, namely, Army Corps of Engineers）; 又不能表示前面整个句子（ACE proposed building a breakwater of rocks）的结果或影响，总不能这边提个建议，那边就absorbing了吧），于是就选错了。

此题给了我很大的启示，认真分析了为什么用对V-ing phrase的体系化理解，反倒把题做错了？这里把自己的思考结果分享一下。

1. 我认为对于V-ing的体系化理解本身并没有错，就像美国人自己编的Manhattan一样，对于这个结构，也是说了三种情况：

1）modifies nouns directly (eg., the changing seasons.)

2）It can modify verbs and their subjects.(eg., I lifted the weight, whistling.)

3）It can even modify an entire clause as the following sentence, as long as the entire clause converted into a noun phrase could function as the subject of the verb that is now in -ing form. For example, the following sentence illustrates this process, since we can say that the recent decrease in crime... has led to a rise. This use of the -ing form works best when you want to express the result of the main clause. (Crime has recently decreased in our neighborhood, leading to a rise in property values.)

但为什么套在这个题里就错了呢？我觉得问题在这里，上述第2）点，人家说的是modify verbs and their subjects, 并没有说 modify the main verbs of a complete sentence and their subjects, 也就是说：如果V-ing在一个从句里，该从句也可以构成S+V+O, V-ing的结构，那么V-ing当然可以修饰从句里的S+V, 然后logically apply to S；或者表示从句中这个S+V+O的results；比如上面的例子就可以这样改，He is informed that I lifted the weight, whistling. 显然whistling不是修饰He,或者表示主句的结果，而是在从句中的，但是这个句子很容易懂，不是么？

我明白自己犯的问题，是：“粗暴地用逗号来区分了V-ing和它潜在可以修饰的主语、谓语或者句子，而没有分析句子的结构”。显然，在这个题中，that(breakwater) would rise... and act as a buffer, absorbing and protecting 就构成了从句中完整的S+V+O, V-ing；而我粗暴地跳过了从句按照主句去分析了。当然就错了。

2. 单独看上述第1点，也许觉得是不是在拿学到的语法点强行解释 ，但是其实不是的，语言本身就很灵活，我们在运用一些语法知识的时候，一定要在语言本身自然存在的灵活性中运用，而不是一棍子打死，而从句带来的多层次，就是语言本身存在的灵活性，你需要尊重它；

3. 单独看到后面的protecting，确实完全可以做出正确答案；是不是我们就不用这样分析了，我认为不是的。英文毕竟不是我们的母语，要建立真正的intuition,就需要大量的阅读和分析，而这样的分析，真的是多多益善。比如这个句子里，还有一个第一次读的人可能会产生疑问的地方，proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that... 看起来很奇怪很冗繁，但语感（靠积累起来的）好的人，会立刻发现parallel to shore这个短语是因为后面a breakwater of rocks that太长了，如果其放在最后面肯定读者理解不了，所以提到了宾语的前面。经过大量这样的训练，我们才能够建立真正的intuition, 为以后在商学院大量阅读奠定功力。

4. 做SC，永远在grammar以上，有一些东西更重要，我把他们叫做：基础智慧。比如，意思表达的清晰，没有歧义。后者是语言产生的目的，而语法只是工具，我发现做题做着做着就容易陷入grammar这个层级，这是不对的。一个有歧义的句子，语法再完美，也是错误的。

●按照OG的意思，那两个doing应该是修饰breakwater的。

“现在分词在句尾用逗号隔开，必须要注意的一点是这个结构从来都没有失去过“做定语”的功能，只是优先做状语而已，即优先修饰到前面主句的主语和谓语。”这是prep笔记上的一句话。终于注意到了修饰名词用的doing了。

●baby姐认为，这个absorbing and protecting作结果状语。

V-ing分词如果（做后置定语）修饰一个名词的话，必须要紧跟名词后面，否则会修饰歧义，比如这里可能修饰buffer，因为这是曼哈顿书上说的touch rule，就是ing分词要紧跟修饰词后面。

●此题ing修饰没有紧跟名词是个例外：

根据曼哈顿，这个问题可以解决：

根据，曼哈顿 P235 Modifiers : Exceptions to the Touch Rule第1条：A "mission-critical' modifier falls between

精简来说，A of B，ing分词。ing分词可以跳跃修饰，修饰的是A而不是修饰B。

breakwater of rocks (that would rise 6 feet above the waterline and act as a buffer), ing... and ing...

这里ing分词，修饰的既不是buffer也不是rocks。修饰的是breakwater。

2、ing分词作结果状语，修饰前面整句句子，表示导致的结果。  

3、ing分词作伴随状语，"副词性" 修饰前面的动词，表示同时发生。ving分词引导的从句的逻辑主语等于句子主语。

1) it should apply most early to the subject of the preceding clause

2) it should have one of the following RELATIONSHIPS to that clause:

Example: I got a 100 on the most recent exam, bringing my average up to 91.

Example: I ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly.

●这道题目的句子很好In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, absorbing the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

首先，句子开头是个opening modifier，修饰紧随其后的句子的主语the army corps of engineers（错误选项通常会使开头的opening modifier修饰随后句子主语时不合逻辑，变成dangling modifier）；句子的主要谓语是propose，用法为propose doing sth.，parallel to shore是a breakwater的前置定语，of rocks是介宾短语作后置定语，随后的that定语从句也是a breakwater的一个修饰成分，在从句中又由and并列了两个谓语平行；句尾and又并列了absorbing和protecting平行，结构上应该是很明确的，重点在于absorbing and protecting的作用，是修饰之前主句，还是修饰前面的名词（prep笔记上说，逗号doing结构从来没有失去修饰其前名词的作用，只是应首先apply to主句的主谓）？仔细分析后发现，之前主句的主语the army corps of engineers来发出absorbing the energy和protecting the beaches的动作是不甚合逻辑的，其发出者应该是a breakwater，所以absorbing and protecting是来修饰之前名词breakwater的。此时又会出现疑问，那就是修饰成分与被修饰成分相隔太远，没关系，这是touch rule的特殊情况，就是在名词与doing之间存在有“特殊任务（其实还是修饰，只不过是必要的）”的成分，在此句中存在的成分就是of的介宾结构和that定语从句。总的来说这个句话的重难点在于：1. parallel to shore前置使不知所措 2. 句尾分词的理解

●1.doing/done,svo：注意分词的逻辑主语要与s一致

2.prep/conj.+doing/done,svo：注意此时的逻辑主语要与s一致

3.s,doing/done：v分词做定语修饰主语

OG verbal 2nd 113

In A.D. 391, resulting from the destruction of the largest library of the ancient world at Alexandria, later generations lost all but the Iliad and Odyssey among Greek epics, most of the poetry of Pindar and Sappho, and dozens of plays by Aeschylus and Euripides.

就是resulting from the destruction of the largest library of the ancient world at Alexandria, 修饰接下来的主语later generations。但是，later generations are resulting from the destruction of the largest library of the ancient world at Alexandria这句话逻辑上合理么？不合理！因此(A)选项是错的。

Having been showninto the office, Julia waited for the dentist to arrive.

e.g.

Many daring vacationers who participatein guided boat tours on the Tarcoles River encounter nativecrocodiles lurking in the shallows, with eyes and noses peeking out from the surface of the murky water.

- I ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly.

- I got a 100 on the most recent exam, bringing my average up to 91.

--

Examples:

Joe broke the window, angering his father. -->this sentence makes sense, because it correctly implies that Joe "angered his father".

The window was broken by Joe, angering his father.--> this sentence doesn't make sense, because it implies that the window(i.e., not Joe himself) angered Joe's father.

My brother tricked me, disappointing Dad --> implies that dad is disappointed in my brother for tricking me (and not necessarily disappointed in me for being tricked).

I was tricked by my brother, disappointing Dad --> implies that dad is disappointed in me because I fell for my brother's trick (and not that he's disappointed in my brother for tricking me).

▲Suri：意思是说comma+ving不管是伴随状语还是结果状语其逻辑主语都必须和主句主语一致么？

我看的一个帖子说白勇里面说，做结果状语的时候，没有逻辑主语，整个句子是原因。

OG47：

Five fledgling sea eagles left their nests in western Scotland this summer, bringing to 34 the number of wild birds successfully raised transplants from Norway began in 1975.

A bringing

B and brings

C and it brings

D and it brought

E and brought

再看prep一道：

The number of people flying first class on domestic flights rose sharply in 1990, doubling the increase of the previous year.  

A. doubling the increase of

B. doubling that of the increase in

C. double as much as the increase of

D. twice as many as the increase in

E. twice as many as the increase of

选A，这道题目的意思是说增长是去年增长的两倍，是增长之间的比较，不是说人数之间的比较。

而假如doubling的主语是the number of people，

句子可以还原成the number of people double the increase of the previous那么将人和增长比较，逻辑是不通的吧。

ING FOLLOWED BY A COMMA modifies the entire action of the preceding clause，分词逻辑主语和句子主语一致是否看具体情况？

写到这里……

我又觉得突然，现在举的这个例子是属于伴随动作是第一种，是逻辑主语等于主句主语，我错了…………….

那上一道老鹰的题目，是个结果状语吧，是整件句子是原因，无逻辑主语。

我翻译的Ron的话可能翻错（我先前说的是share主句主语，不严密，sorry）.....还是直接引英文原话好了：

我想请大家理解下这两个动词，为什么用"modifies the entire action" "applies to the subject"

而不是反过来。

首先说，这个"comma+ing" modifier属于"adverbial modifier"（状语），就是修饰整个动作(entire action)。

"applies to the subject"怎么理解？applies不等于modifies。

同学们提到用", v-ing"有两种情况：

(1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action;

- I ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly.

(2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action.

- I got a 100 on the most recent exam, bringing my average up to 91.

我想这就是大家的困惑，大家认为是the entire action (i got a 100 recently) brings my average up to 91.

我觉得这样理解没错。

Again，回到那个"modifies" "applies"

"，bringing my average up to 91"这个描述的是the entire action，所以是"modifies the entire action"。

这里有两个动作，第一个动作是got a 100 on the most recent exam，第二个动作是由第一个动作直接产生的bringing my average up to 91。我们这么理解：

我觉得你的分析没错，白勇书上认为“结果状语的时候没有逻辑主语,整个句子是原因”也不能算错，其实咱从逻辑上理解清楚这个", v-ing"什么时候适合用、什么时候不能用，就好了。至于怎么个理解法，按你自己能理解的思路去理解。

▲OG12-65：

In a plan to stop the erosion of East Coast beaches, the Army Corps of Engineers proposed building parallel to shore a breakwater of rocks that would rise six feet above the waterline and act as a buffer, so that it absorbs the energy of crashing waves and protecting the beaches.

(A) act as a buffer, so that it absorbs

(B) act like a buffer so as to absorb

(C) act as a buffer, absorbing

(D) acting as a buffer, absorbing

(E) acting like a buffer, absorb

我觉得，这道题和咱的结论一点都不矛盾：

首先，不能理解为修饰buffer。buffer在物理学里是减震器，生化里面是缓冲液，不管怎么说，都不可能用"absorbing the energy of crashing waves ..."来描述"buffer"。这题是说：

A that would do xxx and act as a buffer, absorbing .....

A=a breakwater of rocks

这就回到了我前面粗体强调的：

在这个preceding clause里面，主语是"a breakwater of rocks"，"the army corps"是主句主语，咱不考虑主句。

"comma+v-ing" modifies the entire action of the preceding clause.

比如说（抱歉，想不起更好的例子，随便拿我专业的吧，尽量通俗说, geldanamycin是种抗癌药物，不用管它）

Biochemists found that geldanamycin induces cellular stress, leading to cell death.

这句话，"leading to cell death" is the direct and immediate consequence of the entire action of the preceding clause "geldanamycin induces cellular stress", and it applies to the subject within that clause (geldanamycin).  

Biochemists found that geldanamycin induces cellular stress, leading to cell death.

继续接着这个例子说，假如我想表达：生化学家发现geldanamycin能够引起细胞压力，这个发现促进了抗癌药物的研发。那么以下句子是incorrect的：

Biochemists found that geldanamycin induces cellular stress, promoting the development of anti-cancer drugs.

为什么错？因为根据默认语法规则，"comma+v-ing"必须修饰前面那个从句，也就是that之后的从句geldanamycin induces cellular stress，而这显然不合逻辑意思——我们的逻辑意思是，生物学家的这个发现"promoting..."，而非发现的现象本身"promoting..."

Biochemists found that geldanamycin induces cellular stress, a finding promoting the development of anti-cancer drugs.

▲Suri：

我看到一位nn的原话：

查了一下薄冰的语法，发现其中有一个分词/短语做非限定性定语的例子：He was a great realist, writing ordinary men and women in their misfortunes. 与我们OG10-39/OG11-104的句子结构几乎一样。

这样你的分析就可以帮我们理解四种常见情况了，现引用如下，请确认/指正：

可以看出be动词和一般动词其后接现在分词确实有区别。

(1)主句（其中一般动词谓语) + doing 分词，现在分词可能做定语修饰其紧跟名词，也可能做状语修饰主句，此时须考虑现在分词修饰逻辑问题。（无逗号）

(2) 主句（其中是be动词谓语) + doing 分词，现在分词只能做定语修饰其紧跟名词。（无逗号）

(3) 主句（其中一般动词谓语) ，+ doing 分词做状语。（有逗号）

(4) 主句（其中是be动词谓语) ，+ doing 分词，分词做非限定性定语。（有逗号）

其中第一种情况最为复杂，希望能找到合适的例子多多体会。

If you have a v-ing modifier at the beginning of the sentence, it is typically associated with the subject. Even in the case that it modifies the whole sentence, it should still make sense with the subject.

Example: Slipping on the ice, I fell and broke my ankle.  

In your question:

OG verbal 2nd 113:

In A.D. 391, resulting from the destruction of the largest library of the ancient world at Alexandria, later generations lost all but the Iliad and Odyssey among Greek epics, most of the poetry of Pindar and Sappho, and dozens of plays by Aeschylus and Euripides.

(A) resulting from the destruction of the largest library of the ancient world at Alexandria,

(B) the destroying of the largest library of the ancient world at Alexandria resulted and

(C) because of the result of the destruction of the library at Alexandria, the largest of the ancient world,

(D) as a result of the destruction of the library at Alexandria, the largest of the ancient world,

(E) Alexandria's largest library of the ancient world was destroyed, and the result was

▲相似的题：

原句：Resulting from the Obama's medical reform, people don't have to pay XXX fee, XXX fee, and XXX fee.