谁来帮我看看OG12-38这道题，急问！

xiaoguolulu

In 1850, Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, "arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal riights "and for for changes in the married women's property laws.
A.arguing in a treatise for women to have equal political and legal rights.
E.a treatise that argued for equal political and legal rights for women.

正确答案选E，谁能告诉我为什么A错啊？arguing作为现在分词修饰 Discourse 不可以吗？先谢谢了！！！

一起从头开始

个人理解,希望对你有帮助.
1) arguing 作为现在分词,修饰前面main clause.

2) 其实,你的语感/句子的语义,也告诉你treatise 就是Discourse on Women, 要不然, 用现在分词arguing就错了.

3) 如果treatise是指前面已经出现过的Discourse on Women, 应该用the treatise而不是a treatise; 如果用a treatise, 暗指treatise和Discourse on Women是两个东西, 这显然不合语义.

cicikeke

seeingyou 发表于 2015-12-10 17:38
我认为说错了哦，OG不认同arguing根据就近原则指代discourse的观点。
OG说的是Mott's Discourse was a tr ...

同意！

seeingyou

magico 发表于 2011-10-2 12:54
我个人觉得OG解释的非常清楚了。如果arguing在这里做定语从句，那么根据就近原则，指代的是Discourse。OG上 ...

我认为说错了哦，OG不认同arguing根据就近原则指代discourse的观点。
OG说的是Mott's Discourse was a treatise, and it is redundant and confusing to present her as both publishing her Discourse and arguing in a treatise, as though they were two separate things.
说明OG认同此处Comma + v.-ing (arguing)的用法是，修饰the entire preceding clause，由主语LM作为argue的动作发出者。恰恰因为按句意argue这个action不由LM做，而由treatise=Discourse做，所以Comma + v.-ing形式才不可用。
如果要修饰Comma之前的Clause中最近的Noun or Noun Phrase更多采用如下形式：
同位语
，which

bright1798

magico 发表于 2011-10-2 12:54
我个人觉得OG解释的非常清楚了。如果arguing在这里做定语从句，那么根据就近原则，指代的是Discourse。OG上 ...

agree!!!!

magico

我个人觉得OG解释的非常清楚了。如果arguing在这里做定语从句，那么根据就近原则，指代的是Discourse。OG上也是同样的解释，如果还原句子，那就是Discourse argue in a treatise for equal political。 显然Discourse 和 a treatise是同一个东西，这里不就confusing了吗？
OG解释：Mott’s Discourse was a treatise, and it is redundant
and confusing to present her as both publishing
her Discourse and arguing in a treatise, as though
they were two separate things

lusfe

Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise
一般分词修饰句子的逻辑主语，在这个句子中就是Lucretia Mott, 那就是Lucretia Mott arguing in a treatise。。。所以使得原句看起来成为了Lucretia Mott published her... and Lucretia Mott arguing in a treatise。。。显得Discourse on Women与treatise不是一个东西，但其实他俩是一个东西。所以这样会使句子显得啰嗦且confusing。
published her Discourse on Women，a treatise arguing。。。很明显同为名词的a treatise在逗号之后就是指向Discourse on Women（做同位语还是什么的我就不敢乱说了），然后 a treatise arguing就必然指Discourse on Women arguing了，这样不会歧义。
希望对你有帮助

-- by 会员 lpilikeit (2010/8/25 19:29:13)

哇，令人信服的解释，谢谢！

xiaoguolulu

谢谢！这下清楚了！

lpilikeit

Lucretia Mott published her Discourse on Women, arguing in a treatise
一般分词修饰句子的逻辑主语，在这个句子中就是Lucretia Mott, 那就是Lucretia Mott arguing in a treatise。。。所以使得原句看起来成为了Lucretia Mott published her... and Lucretia Mott arguing in a treatise。。。显得Discourse on Women与treatise不是一个东西，但其实他俩是一个东西。所以这样会使句子显得啰嗦且confusing。
published her Discourse on Women，a treatise arguing。。。很明显同为名词的a treatise在逗号之后就是指向Discourse on Women（做同位语还是什么的我就不敢乱说了），然后 a treatise arguing就必然指Discourse on Women arguing了，这样不会歧义。
希望对你有帮助

wangxiwei

for sb. to do 这种形式不好 容易引起歧义 to do有可能修饰 argue 的