关于ving的夹心修饰问题，请大神帮助

cherrytxt

刷OG千行的时候发现一个知识点，里面说S,ving,V+O这种结构里的ving只能修饰后面的谓语：
关于夹心修饰 (by aeoluseros)：
所以歧义修饰，是因为引发了不同的理解，而并不是语法上是否会有不同的修饰，所谓夹心修饰也是这个原则。很多人对“夹心修饰”都有过一个误解，认为S, v-ing, V. + O.结构中，v-ing既可以往前修饰S，也可以往后修饰V就是夹心，而实际上夹心并不是“可以往前修饰S，也可以往后修饰V” 。在S, v-ing, V. + O.这样的表达中，v-ing约定俗成只伴随修饰动词，（重点！！）见下例：
prep 2-104
The yield per acre of coffee berries varies enormously, because a single tree, depending on its size and on climate and altitude, is able to produce enough berries to make between one and twelve pounds of dried beans a year.

这个句子里depending不能改为dependent，因为depending和dependent的区别在于，前者伴随修饰谓语动词is able to produce，后者则是修饰名词single tree，会造成逻辑上不对 —— “一棵树依靠它的size”。


但是OG上还有一道题：
Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.
这里根据语义是修饰Neuroscientists的

我可以理解为在S,ving,V+O这种结构里需要根据语义来明确修饰对象呢？这两种情况从语法角度来看都是正确的嘛?
谢谢大家

berylzhang

才看Manhattan  楼上盯着ron一阵狂问 淡淡觉得应该是中国人 哈哈哈 果然

enkyklios

soulwangh 发表于 2013-12-10 13:21
Hi,

I, having searched all the right answers of SC, do not find any one using "having" without a c ...

能提供个链接不？我怎么找不到

soulwangh

enkyklios 发表于 2013-12-10 20:04
话说回来了，soulwangh应该对这个问题没有困扰，我们也不必争论它。你有电子版的那个语法书？
可以发我一 ...

you can download it in ishare.

enkyklios

soulwangh 发表于 2013-12-10 20:08
To sum up, I can't rule out the possibilities. To make my argument more sound, I mentioned and c ...

你英语已经很好了，。不用再练啦

soulwangh

enkyklios 发表于 2013-12-10 19:52
As for the Neuroscientists sentence, I think it serves as non-essential noun modifier.              ...

To sum up, I can't rule out the possibilities. To make my argument more sound, I mentioned and considered these and other possible scenarios.

I think I have already made my point clear.
Otherwise, I am practicing AWA on this post.

LOL

enkyklios

soulwangh 发表于 2013-12-10 19:47
pay attention to my helping verb.

1\I think it serves as  ;

话说回来了，soulwangh应该对这个问题没有困扰，我们也不必争论它。你有电子版的那个语法书？
可以发我一份不

enkyklios

soulwangh 发表于 2013-12-10 19:47
pay attention to my helping verb.

1\I think it serves as  ;

As for the Neuroscientists sentence, I think it serves as non-essential noun modifier.

             just want to say Gmac might not allow "having" to be a noun modifier.

事实上因为那个句子出现在了gmat的正确选项中，如果你如果说gmat不允许出现non -modifier ,又怎么认为它是non modifier?
那你的意思是gmat也认为它是一个状语，语法书上也认为它是一个状语。只有你自己认为它是一个定语？是个意思吗。我都糊涂了

而且如如果是这样语法书上和gmat完全一致怎么有“gmat有自己的语法一说？”

soulwangh

enkyklios 发表于 2013-12-10 16:12
应该说我只是对这个现象感兴趣，我不明白为什么有很多人喜欢说gmat的语法云云。事实上gmat只是考试它没有 ...

pay attention to my helping verb.

1\I think it serves as ;

2\Gmac might not allow .

It is not inconsistent.
The first one is my personal opinion. I am not definitely sure about it. I open it to questions.
The second one means I cannot rule out this possibility and concede it.

It is a common rhetoric in argument writing.

As for "S,Ving,VO" pattern, I agree with you it is not a thing whether the modifier is  a noun modifier or a adverbial modifier.  

According to the post from Ron as follows, it is more likely to be a adverbial modifier.

John, running to catch the bus, slipped on the icy pavement and fell.
--> It would be nonsense to take away the commas, because "John" -- who is just one person -- is impossible to narrow down.
--> "Running to catch the bus" describes John.
--> Importantly, "running to catch the bus" is related to the action of the sentence. (John was running when he slipped and fell.)

--

If this kind of relationship doesn't exist, the __ing modifier is inappropriate.

*Jesse, standing almost eight inches taller than me, is my brother.
--> Nonsense, because a height difference has no relationship to the fact that we are brothers.

--

"Which"/"who"/"whom"/"whose" implies no such relationship.

Jesse, who stands almost eight inches taller than me, is my brother.
--> This sentence is fine.

cherrytxt

enkyklios 发表于 2013-12-10 17:41
事实上having done按照语法书的意思就是不能做定语，这是因为它ving修饰名词不应该有时态的变化。所以它和 ...

明白了，原来这个题的点在having done不是ving.
谢谢你，我也是觉得没有特别绝对的表达法，要看哪个语言表达的清楚，逻辑严谨。