[求助]新prep2，210

sunnybabyeva

According to Manhattan, yes, the use of "which" in E seems to be improper, and thus should be avoided ( page 232. It clearly points out that"Again, the relative pronoun Which must refer to the noun just before the Which.").
However, the noun phrases( not only the noun as mentioned above) that immediately precedes the coma is also acceptable, in this case, it's "ED's letters to SD ", and the pronoun "which" DID right follow this noun phrases behind the coma. So it's actually consistent with what we have found on "Manhattan".
plz see http://www.manhattangmat.com/forums/post24246.html

兰心寒

我看了好久，好像还是没有人回答，是不是E选项的outnumber用过去时更好啊？这里为什么要用一般现在时啊？

q2621109

Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber ^, 请问各位牛牛，我咋看不懂开头Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson 是啥结构呢？ 求解答……………………………………………………

oc16chan

兰心寒 发表于 2013-11-7 16:23
我看了好久，好像还是没有人回答，是不是E选项的outnumber用过去时更好啊？这里为什么要用一般现在时啊？ ...

因为这个是客观事实，过去，现在，将来，那些给susan的信都会比她写给其他人的信多。。。。

雷龙的脖子10米长，is longer than地球上曾经出现过的任何脖子~~~比如长颈鹿。。。。

oc16chan

ericeric77 发表于 2013-7-9 23:36
这个所谓逻辑解释太牵强，看了答案可以这么强行解释。

凭啥写信和outnumber没逻辑联系，不写那么多年咋出 ...

是有逻辑关系的，但是这些给susan的信是被写的，这里用了被动语态，不能导致these letters主动outnumber后面那些东西~~~ 下面这个例子不懂能不能表达得更清楚点。
E.g.: a large amount of insecticide was used on these crops, making complete abscence of crop-eating bullworms.
首先，这个Making其实是人为喷洒农药的结果，农药被动地被喷不能make任何东西。如果把making换成leading: insecticide was used, leading to abscence of worms，意思就通顺了，前句的整个situaton 导致了后面，而不只是前句的主语。

如果没有要强调cause-effect，就只是说药可以杀虫，句子也可以改成a large amount of insecticide was used on these crops and it made complete abscence of bullworms.
这个是我的理解，错误请指教

兰心寒

oc16chan 发表于 2013-12-20 02:12
因为这个是客观事实，过去，现在，将来，那些给susan的信都会比她写给其他人的信多。。。。

雷龙的脖子1 ...

哦，谢谢谢谢呢～

yingtang

跟被动没有关系呢 想太多要晕的

yingtang

问：Some people say that using a present participle phrase to express the  result of the preceding clause is not allowed when the preceding clause is in a passive voice？

Ron： the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are two completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.


if a grammatical construction can be correct with an active-voice verb, it can also be correct with a passive-voice verb. there is no grammatical difference between the uses of active and passive verbs; the difference between active and passive is strictly an issue of meaning.
such sentences can quite easily be correct.
e.g.
john was thrown from the car, sustaining multiple injuries.
that's a correct sentence in which you have a comma -ing modifier modifying a passive-voice clause.

yingtang

oc16chan 发表于 2013-12-20 02:20
是有逻辑关系的，但是这些给susan的信是被写的，这里用了被动语态，不能导致these letters主动outnumber ...

these letters outnumber .....是完全站得住脚的主谓，你给的例子 this insecticide makes ....也是站的住脚的主谓。两个句子中outnumbering和making都apply to the subject and modify the preceding clause。
A的错误在于虽然写信的时期很长，但是并不一定导致Emily写给Susan的信比Emily写给其他所有人的都多。

g0418

可不可以这么理解，A中outnumbering的逻辑主语letters 在逻辑上是不能超过的，应该是letters 的数量超过给别人的数量，所以这个v-ing修饰有问题