急问一个语法问题！！

五月十三

AlienX, I have very appreciated you for your sharing.

Then I apologize for what I had rushly said before.

我查了薄冰主编的《英语高级语法》其中讲到了定语从句的位置，摘录如下：

定语从句的位置，一般说来，是比较固定的，它一般都直接置于其所修饰的名（代）词（即其先行词）之后。但有时定语从句并不紧接其所修饰的名（代）词，而是被一些其他词语所隔开，这就是所谓的隔离定语从句。如：

A new master will come tomorrow who will teach you German. 明天要来一位新的老师教你们德语了。（定语从句不是紧跟在其修饰的名称master之后，而是置于句子末尾，以示强调）

There was an old man there who was smoking a long pipe.那里有一个老头，抽着一个很长的烟斗。（定语从句不紧跟其所修饰的名词an old man而是置于句末，是为整个句子的平衡也是为了避免there置于句末会引起的误解）

定语从句偶尔也可放在起所修饰的名词之前，如：

He is sure of succeeding, or, which is more usual, success.他一定会成功，或用更通常的说法，他一定成功。（定语从句which is more usual 在此显然修饰其他的名词success）

另外，在《白勇GMAT语法全解》里，也只写道：

定语从句的修饰对象必须明确合理，修饰原则是先就近再跳跃。

希望能对LZ有所帮助。

ambrosecelin

先感谢两位NN，我想我要好好研究一下...

ambrosecelin

另外还想问一个问题，关于which的修饰和-ing修饰的区别？

-ing修饰是不是对于逗号前面的整句话的修饰

而which的修饰则更多基于逗号前的那个字的修饰？

在做题的时候，区别两者是不是可以从逻辑主谓的角度出发？还是有其他什么更好的方法？

谢谢！

AlienX

"which" probably modifies the preceding noun.  "which" cannot modify the preceding clause.  GMAT grammar doesn't accept such usage although actual english grammar allows it.
present participle(verb-ing) (preceded by a comma) can modify the preceding clause or the preceding noun.

ambrosecelin

那这样的话，在做题的时候，区别两者就从逻辑主谓的角度出发是最好的选择吧？

因为在前面的讨论中，which的用法好像很灵活...

AlienX

A present participle is more "flexible" than "which" in modifying a noun.
Here is an example from GMATPrep2:

    

The new
image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than merely
scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany,
including three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be about
400,000 years old.

    

(A)
merely scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination of tools found in
Germany,
including
(B) as merely
scavenging for meat, have emerged from examining tools found in Germany, which
include
(C) as
mere meat scavengers, has emerged from examining tools found in Germany that
includes
(D) mere
scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, which
includes
(E) mere
scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany,
including

The answer is E.
D uses a present participle to modify "tools" whereas E uses "which" to introduce a adjective clause to modify "tools".
So I *think* that we can safely conclude that a present participle is more "flexible" than "which" in modifying a noun.  But it doesn't mean that GMAT prefers a present participle to "which".

ambrosecelin

以下是引用AlienX在2008-4-2 4:00:00的发言：
A present participle is more "flexible" than "which" in modifying a noun.
Here is an example from GMATPrep2:

 

The new
image of Stone Age people as systematic hunters of large animals, rather than merely
scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany,
including three wooden spears that archaeologists believe to be about
400,000 years old.

 

(A)
merely scavenging for meat, have emerged from the examination of tools found in
Germany,
including
(B) as merely
scavenging for meat, have emerged from examining tools found in Germany, which
include
(C) as
mere meat scavengers, has emerged from examining tools found in Germany that
includes
(D) mere
scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany, which
includes
(E) mere
scavengers of meat, has emerged from the examination of tools found in Germany,
including

The answer is E.
D uses a present participle to modify "tools" whereas E uses "which" to introduce a adjective clause to modify "tools".
So I *think* that we can safely conclude that a present participle is more "flexible" than "which" in modifying a noun.  But it doesn't mean that GMAT prefers a present participle to "which".

是不是说倒了？

我在OG上找到这么一句话：

“which” appears to refer vaguely back to everything that has preceded it instead of referring to a specific noun.

OG-11-71

还找到另一句话：

As used here, it correctly describes an action that happens at the same time as the action in the main clause;

OG-11-43

请问怎么看待？is it mean that "-ing" form is prior to which ?

3x AlienX again~~~~~

“which” appears to refer vaguely back to everything that has preceded it instead of referring to a specific noun.

OG-11-71

还找到另一句话：

As used here, it correctly describes an action that happens at the same time as the action in the main clause;

OG-11-43

请问怎么看待？is it mean that "-ing" form is prior to which ?

3x AlienX again~~~~~

[此贴子已经被作者于2008-4-2 8:50:36编辑过]

AlienX

umm...let's try this:
1. [clause], which ....
2. S+V+O verb-ing...
3. S+V+O, verb-ing...

In #1, "which" can refer to almost any noun in the preceding clause.
In #2, verb-ing can ONLY refer to the object O, which is a noun.
In #3, "verb-ing..." can
a) represent the result of the preceding clause(隨伴結果) OR
b) represent a short form of "while S (is/are/was/were) verbing..." OR
c) function as a modifer modifying a noun in the preceding clause.

ambrosecelin

以下是引用AlienX在2008-4-2 10:19:00的发言：
umm...let's try this:
1. [clause], which ....
2. S+V+O verb-ing...
3. S+V+O, verb-ing...

In #1, "which" can refer to almost any noun in the preceding clause.
In #2, verb-ing can ONLY refer to the object O, which is a noun.
In #3, "verb-ing..." can
a) represent the result of the preceding clause(隨伴結果) OR
b) represent a short form of "while S (is/are/was/were) verbing..." OR
c) function as a modifer modifying a noun in the preceding clause.

既然-ing有那么多用法的话，是否在修饰逗号前那个字的时候，用which会更好呢？
            

GWD3-33

Almost a decade after New York State passed laws to protect patients by reducing the grueling hours worked by medical residents, twelve hospitals have been investigated by state medical officials, finding that all twelve consistently break the laws, many residents work longer than 24 hours straight, and that more than half the surgical residents work more than 95 hours a week.

1. an investigation by state medical officials of twelve hospitals have found all twelve consistently breaking the laws, that many residents work longer than 24 hours straight, with more than half the surgical residents working
                   

2. an investigation of twelve hospitals by state medical officials has found that all twelve consistently break the laws, that many residents work longer than 24 hours straight, and that more than half the surgical residents work

3. twelve hospitals have been investigated by state medical officials, finding that all twelve consistently break the laws, many residents work longer than 24 hours straight, and that more than half the surgical residents work
                   

4. twelve hospitals were investigated by state medical officials who found all twelve breaking the laws, with many residents working longer than 24 hours straight, and more than half the surgical residents work
                   

5. an investigation by state medical officials has found that, of twelve hospitals, all twelve consistently break the laws, that many residents work longer than 24 hours straight, with more than half the surgical residents working

6. 答案选C，

根据你的解释，finding既可以修饰hospital又可以修饰officials，所以不能用finding，所以A不对？

请指教！

AlienX

umm...I think that you don't mean  "finding既可以修饰hospital又可以修饰officials，所以不能用finding，所以A不对".
I think that you want to say C is wrong, right?
I personally believe that the answer is B NOT C.  I can't find your question in my GWD sets.
Anyway, C is wrong since "many residents work longer than 24 hours straight" doesn't parallel with "that all twelve consistently break the laws" and "that more than half the surgical residents work".  This is a necessary parallelism.


Let's try POE:
A: wrong because "have" doesn't match "an investigation".
B. correct.
C. See above.
D. wrong because if you try to simplify the sentence, the sentence is like "twelve hospitals were investigated by state medical officials, and more than half the surgical residents work...".  "more than half the surgical residents work..." what state officials found.  It doesn't make sense to use "and" to connect those two clauses.
E. wrong because it is a run-on sentence; we need an "and" before "that many..".  Besides such error, "with more than half..." is supposed to modify the "twelve hospitals"; but such phrase is too far.