OG 1

vivian_smile99

终于弄明白了。谢

丑得老婆哭

以下是引用Avantasia在2005-4-18 9:44:00的发言：

补充一点, 也是对我以前犯的一个错误的更正:

这里正确选项D中的that个人理解应该是可以的, 大家可以看看OG210, 解释的第三行和第四行写的相当清楚, 分词可以跳越修饰而不产生歧义, 相当于A of B结构, 同时, 这题也充分说明了在定语从句和分词的比较属于简洁性错误, 而简洁是effectiveness, 不能作为开始排除答案的依据.

同时保留以前的解释: 不及物动词极除少数外, 不可以被动, 它们的过去分词形式表示一种过去完成时的概念.

如果去掉THAT的话，从句中就有两个动词作为谓语， even after a decade young men and women still experience some of the effects of a divorce  occurred when they were children。这是一个明显的错误吧。

EASYSUMMER

我也说两句：OG的解释:Choice A incorrectly introduces the when... phrase with occurring, thus illogically making divorce the grammatical referent of when a child是什么意思啊?

我理解意思是：当WHEN...从句跟在OCCURRING后，就造成了前面被修饰的DIVORCE成了WHEN A CHILD的语法上的主语（为什么？前面已经有朋友说了：当主语与前面相同时省略),这显然时不合逻辑的。（因为 DOVICE 怎么会 IS A CHILD 呢？）

DARRENMA

以下是引用薰衣紫草在2005-4-18 9:21:00的发言：

Ok, it's time to clarify everything!!!

A. 限定性修饰, 起限制约束作用:

1.由that 引导的定语从句, (that只引导限定性定语从句, 前面不会有逗号)

2.由前面没有逗号的一wh开头的词(who, which...)引导的定语从句,

3.with引导的短语

构成的修饰就是限定性的修饰, 起限制的作用. 就象OG1里的that定语从句. 什么样的divorce呢? 是发生在when they were children时候的divorce, 而不是所有的divorce. 即限定

B. 非限制性修饰:

1. 由前面有逗号的一wh开头的词(who, which...)引导的定语从句

2. 由分词短语

构成的修饰就是非限制性修饰, 起解释, 说明的作用. 就象OG1里的divorce, 如果用分词修饰就变成 divorce 的定义(definition) 是 occuring when a child, 即解释, 说明.

og 07 Dr. Hakuta's research among Hispanic children in the United States indicates that the more the children use both Spanish and English, their intellectual advantage is greater in skills underlying reading ability and nonverbal logic.

(A)  their intellectual advantage is greater in skills underlying reading ability and nonverbal logic

(B)  their intellectual advantage is the greater in skills underlaying reading ability and nonverbal logic

(C)  the greater their intellectual advantage in skills underlying reading ability and nonverbal logic

(D)  in skills that underlay reading ability and nonver­bal logic, their intellectual advantage is the greater

(E)   in skills underlying reading ability and nonverbal logic, the greater intellectual advantage is theirs

The best choice is C.

分词修饰是非限定性的.但此题中的underlying非限定修饰skills,意思就是说所有skills都是以reading ability and nonverbal logic.为基础的. 岂不是很荒谬? 分词修饰到底是非限定还是限定性?请各位NN指点,谢谢!

DARRENMA

顶一下,等待N人指点.

EASYSUMMER

我再来一次，实际上我和楼上有同感，我觉得这里不是非限定修饰和限定修饰的问题，

令外也觉得 N+分词 是限定修饰，因为OG 143 OG144

swlfx

以下是引用lxj19820127在2003-12-17 18:45:00的发言：
v+ed 表示一次性的动作；v+ing 表示重复性的动作；

多谢。

simeonshi

以下是引用lilyzy在2004-12-30 0:39:00的发言：

还是不太明白, 这里省略了that应该是可以的吧? 没有什么歧义呀.

谁能帮忙解释一下.

应该不可以的，divorce that occured when ... 这里that引导的是定语从句修饰divorce，但是that在从句中是做主语。由that引导的定语从句并且that做主语，那么that不能省略

jamiw75

以下是引用丑得老婆哭在2005-6-5 10:53:00的发言：


如果去掉THAT的话，从句中就有两个动词作为谓语， even after a decade young men and women still experience some of the effects of a divorce  occurred when they were children。这是一个明显的错误吧。

This equals to:

even after a decade young men and women still experience some of the effects of a divorce That has/had occurred when they were children

?

and "has/had" is not correct here, because has - means something is happened before now , so not correct with "when they were "(?)

had occurred- not correct, should be at the same time as they were children, not happen before "they were children", so should be "occured"

so "that" can't be omitted, otherwise make it confusing, ="that has/had occurred"

am I correct?

hustlcq

我觉得现在分词和过去分词作定语的区别，主要是表示的主动还是被动的不同。

另外有个问题，divorce为何使用单数，它不是很多men and women的divorces吗？盼DNN指教