og11给的答案说明中有这样一句话:If the participial phrase were to modify the previous clause, a comma would have to be inserted between combine and allowing. 是不是就是说,如果分词短语想要修饰前面的句子,中间必须要有逗号?? 但是这个不应该啊,http://forum.chasedream.com/dispbbs.asp?boardid=23&replyid=3304064&id=326156&page=1&skin=0&Star=5 这个贴是现在分词的总结, og98:As rainfall began to decrease in the Southwest about the middle of the twelfth century, most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans whose access to water was less limited. (A) whose access to water was less limited (B) where there was access to water that was less limited (C) where they had less limited water access (D) with less limitations on water access (E) having less limitations to water access 解释E: E As a countable quantity, limitations should be modified by fewer, not less; having is ambiguous because it is unclear whether it refers to the Anasazi or other clans 这里having前面没有“,”但是他却说有歧义?!! As rainfall began to decrease in the Southwest about the middle of the twelfth century, most of the Monument Valley Anasazi abandoned their homes to join other clans whose access to water was less limited. (A) whose access to water was less limited (B) where there was access to water that was less limited (C) where they had less limited water access (D) with less limitations on water access (E) having less limitations to water access 解释E: E As a countable quantity, limitations should be modified by fewer, not less; having is ambiguous because it is unclear whether it refers to the Anasazi or other clans 这里having前面没有“,”但是他却说有歧义?!! |