又一个语法考点的总结（现在分词伴随状语的正反向考法）

brent_zhang

上文的红色背景部分，和我记忆中的恰好相反。我记得是分词可以跳跃修饰，“,which”从句不可以，来源于OG229的答案。非常困惑，敬请指教！谢谢！

分词不跳跃修饰是指不作状语的时候。做状语时分词的修饰都是跳跃的。

我的理解，供参考

seasnow

呵呵，明白了。就是说如果分词作定语，一定要紧跟修饰对象。谢谢！

ly365

OG 11TH

104. Nuclear fusion is the force that powers the Sun, the stars, and hydrogen bombs, merging the nuclei of atoms and not splitting them apart, as in nuclear reactors.

(A) merging the nuclei of atoms and not splitting them apart, as in nuclear reactors

(B) merging the nuclei of atoms instead of splitting them apart, like nuclear reactors

(C) merging the nuclei of atoms rather than splitting them apart, as nuclear reactors do    （C）

(D) and merges the nuclei of atoms but does not split them apart, as is done in unclear reactors

(E) and merges the nuclei of atoms, unlike atomic reactors that split them apart

同大全541

And not is an awkward way to establish a contrast; instead of, rather than, or unlike are more appropriate idioms to express a contrast. the comma folloing bombs is paired with the comma following apart, and this comma parir sets off the participial phrase introduced by merging. As introduces a clause; since a clause requires a subject and a verb, as cannot be followed by the prepositional phrase in nuclear reactors.

C) correct. rather than is a correct idiom for comparison in this sentence; as is followed by a clause with a subject, nuclear reactors, and a verb, do; the comparison is clear and complete.

E)illogical and awkward construction incorrectly makes merges the second verb of the restrictive clause and a separate action parallel to powers; comparison is awkwardly drawn; switch from nuclear to atomic is unexplained and unsupported.

贴是好贴，但例子没举对，我原先也“掉坑”选C了

cocokiner

這篇寫得真精采

以前一直弄不懂的地方

現在都豁然開朗了

顾风

是啊，建议版主编辑下贴子，换个例子

ailingzh

此题从另一个角度来考虑更好。merge是和power并列的动词，都做that从句中的谓语。因为从逻辑上讲，显然是force能发出power和merge的动作，根本谈不上和is的并列或什么伴随状语的问题。

楼主的归纳不错，可惜举的例子不很恰当哟。

本人拙见，欢迎批评指正。

mayleila

现在分词在句首，逻辑主语应该是主句主语。 印象中xdf老师是这样说的，那么与OG一致的，begin不可能是主语是England,所以不对。

看了上面的例子，对楼主的崇拜，无以复加。希望楼主和各位同学指正。

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-5-29 15:28:49编辑过]

snowfield

以下是引用薰衣紫草在2005-6-10 4:41:00的发言：

那我就不客气真的拍了(不是NN), 反正手头有块冰砖.

1. , 分词做非限制修饰的比比皆是. 关键看他在句尾还是句中. 如果在句中, 那就是非限制修饰(OG258), 但要注意, 如果句中的非限制分词有一个句子跟在后面, 那就有歧义的, 因为搞不清是修饰后面的句子还是前面的名词. 所以这时候要用从句. 如果 ,分词在句尾, 那就99%修饰前面的动作.

2. "分词比从句简洁，从句比分词清晰，因此如果这个划线修饰部分前面出现有N个（N≥2）名词时，就应尽量用从句。 OG1"

这个观点我持保留意见, OG178就是一个反例. 我认为从句的先行词存在跳跃修饰的可能性, 虽然that的跳跃基本局限于a of b结构, 但分词不存在跳跃修饰, 大多直接修饰前面的名词. 所以分词与从句的使用并不取决于前面名词的多少, 而是修饰的可行性.

刚刚注意到上述关于句中的现在分词可能存在的修饰问题，因为以前从未听说过的这一语法现象，在下对比了几位nn的有关说法。只有在山峰的笔记给出了一个例子Og179，对此OG解释中说法是：D and E are confusingly worded because they begin with present participles (having and knowing) that appear at first to refer to the immediately preceding noun, newcomers, rather than to Native Americans. 从这句话来看OG认为现在分词是在修饰前面的紧前先行词（这是正常的gmat规则），这显然跟现在分词的逻辑主语native americans不一致，所以这里不能用现在分词。但这是否意味着从语法上现在分词还能够修饰其他句子成分呢？我觉得上述分析中排除现在分词的真实原因是现在分词修饰的成分和其逻辑主语不一致，而不是因为现在分词修饰对象存在歧义。og说的AT FIRST，LONGMAN的解释如下：
at first：used to talk about the beginning of a situation, especially when it is different now
At first, Gregory was shy and hardly spoke. I felt quite disappointed at first.

OG的解释好像是在说分词开始是在修饰先行词，后来是在修饰其他成分。但我们可不可以这样理解og的意思呢：从语法上现在分词应该修饰先行词，但这里逻辑上却又要求它修饰句子主语而不是先行词呢？如果这种理解正确的话，从本题中我们不能‘非限制修饰(OG258), 但要注意, 如果句中的非限制分词有一个句子跟在后, 那就有歧义的, 因为搞不清是修饰后面的句子还是前面的名词’这一结论。不知紫草mm或其他NN还有没有其他例子能证明上述说法？

板砖、冰砖一并欢迎.....

OG179.
   During the early years of European settlement on a continent that was viewed as “wilderness” by the newcomers, Native Americans, intimately knowing the ecology of the land, were a help in the rescuing of many Pilgrims and pioneers from hardship, or even death.

(A) Native Americans, intimately knowing the ecology of the land, were a help in the rescuing of

(B) Native Americans knew the ecology and the land intimately and this enabled them to help in the rescue of

(C) Native Americans, with their intimate knowledge of the ecology of the land, helped to rescue

(D) having intimate knowledge of the ecology of the land, Native Americans helped the rescue of（C）

(E) knowing intimately the ecology of the land, Native Americans helped to rescue

Choice A suffers from the wordy and indirect expression were a help in the rescuing of. B creates an awkward, redundant, fused sentence in which the first clause has to be repeated in the vague this of the second clause; furthermore, the comma required before and in larger compound sentences is omitted. D and E are confusingly worded because they begin with present participles (having and knowing) that appear at first to refer to the immediately preceding noun, newcomers, rather than to Native Americans. D also has the wordy and unidiomatic helped the rescue of. Clear, direct, and economical, choice C is best.

[此贴子已经被作者于2006-7-3 13:12:45编辑过]

skyinseas

以下是引用dxwei2008在2004-4-30 17:21:00的发言：

现在分词伴随状语的正反向考法

总论

GMAT语法中常常考查前一个分句的整体对后面一个对象的作用结果，一般认可的正确答案是使用现在分词做伴随状语。另外还有一种应用情况是，两个动作同时发生。在平时的语法中，我们常常使用连词and来连接两个动作，可是在GMAT语法中常常使用伴随状语。老鱼在它的讲座里举的一个例子就是：

She is sitting on the tree and reading a book. (一般语法)

She is sitting on the tree, reading a book.(GMAT语法)

所以我们在以下两个情况下要使用伴随状语

1、
            前一个分句的整体对后面某一个对象的作用

2、
            两个同时发生的动作

一、正向考法

正向考法就是要你识别出前一个分句是从整体上对后一个分句的宾语发生作用。例如：

He scored 100, making him the best student.

这里的making动作的逻辑主语就是前一个分句的整体。既不是前分句的主语也不是前分句的宾语，所以只可以使用伴随状语。

这样的正向考题非常非常多，ETS给出的干扰选项也非常有规律。

1、
            which引导的非限制性定语从句

一般语法中可以使用which指代前面的整个分句，而GMAT语法中不允许。这个选项的干扰性最强。

2、
            不定式

考生常常会忽略不定式的逻辑主语是否是句子的主语，所以也有干扰性。不过在GMAT里，似乎没有看到过逗号以后使用不定式仍然是正确答案的先例（平行对称结构除外）。

3、
            介词宾语结构

介词宾语结构不如不定式，如果不是固定搭配最好不要用。

二、反向考法之

既然一个考点可以正向考，如果不反向也考一考就没有难度了。反向的考法是，当前一个分句本来没有对后一个分句的宾语造成任何作用，题目却不断地引诱你去这样做。例如：

He went into the classroom and sit on the chair.(逻辑上很合理，只有进了教室才可以坐在椅子上)

ETS的干扰选项：He went into the classroom, sitting on the chair.(逻辑上就很荒谬了，在进教室这个动作发生的时候，他一直坐在椅子上)

He scored 100 in the 1^st test and scored 99 in the 2^nd test.(逻辑上很合理)

ETS的干扰选项：He scored 100 in the 1^st test, scoring 99 in the 2^nd test.(逻辑上很荒谬，第一次考了100导致第二次考99)

来一个实际中的例子，新东方补充教材新版本204题：

Nuclear fusion is the force that powers the Sun, the stars, and hydrogen bombs, merging the nuclei of atoms and not splitting them apart, as in nuclear reactors.

(A) merging the nuclei of atoms and not splitting them apart, as in nuclear reactors

(B) merging the nuclei of atoms instead of splitting them apart, like nuclear reactors

(C) merging the nuclei of atoms rather than splitting them apart, as nuclear reactors do

(D) and merges the nuclei of atoms but does not split them apart, as is done in unclear reactors

(E) and merges the nuclei of atoms, unlike atomic reactors that split them apart

很明显，is这个动作和merge这个动作不可能是同时发生的，也不可能是前一个句子的整体导致后面动作的发生，所以使用merge就错了。大家可以注意到，ABC三个选项都在引诱你使用伴随状语，这就是ETS的险恶用心。所以答案必须在DE中筛选。

这道题是og11上的104题，og上选的是C,这是这么回事？那个nn出来看看

skyinseas

以下是引用dxwei2008在2004-5-1 7:53:00的发言：

dancingforum的考虑是有道理的，不过我在做完了所有的题目后发现ETS的出题风格非常有规律性。它考的是GMAT语法，不是英语语法。所以它正确的答案只有那么几种，错误只有那么几种，连思路都只有那么几种。ETS最牛的地方就在于，即使我知道它所有的考点，我仍然会做错很多的题目。你根本不需要考虑什么方式状语不方式状语，ETS在设计GMAT的时候只考查伴随状语和非伴随状语在逻辑上的区别。要不然GMAT就成了英语考试，考英语能力和记忆力。而事实上，GMAT是能力考试，考的就是那么固定的几种语法知识和逻辑思路。逻辑思路才是真正的重点。在这个考点上，你记住上面的总结就可以了。ETS不会再有任何例外。

从逻辑上如果理解为方式状语的话，也讲不通。翻译如下：

“通过连接***这样的方式，nuclear fusion是一个什么什么东西。”（显然不对劲）

再转达新东方老师上课讲的一句话：GMAT不是在考英语，而是在考能力。

分词独立结构的正反向考法我有空再总结，5月10号就考了。

这位大哥，我把merging。。。作为定语修饰nuclear，可不可以？