夹心修饰,我凌乱了(PS:不算报道的处女贴)

je04tta

Prep 2008语法笔记里面的题目
207.(T-4-Q30)
Unlike the short flights of the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, which carried sufficient power in fuel cells and batteries, a permanently orbiting space station will have to generate its own electricity.

A.the short flights of the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, which carried sufficient power in fuel cells and batteries,

B.the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, with sufficient enough power in fuel cells and batteries for their short flights,

C.the short flights of the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, which enabled them to carry sufficient enough power in fuel cells and batteries,

D.the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, which were capable of carrying sufficient power in fuel cells and batteries for their short flights,(D)

E.the flights of the shuttle and earlier spacecraft, whose shortness allowed them to carry sufficient power in fuel cells and batteries,

B.Sufficient和enough同义词重复；With引导独立主格结构有修饰歧义


然后补充解释中:
1. 关于夹心修饰(by aeoluseros)：

所以歧义修饰，是因为引发了不同的理解，而并不是语法上是否会有不同的修饰，所谓夹心修饰也是这个原则。很多人对“夹心修饰”都有过一个误解，认为S, v-ing, V. + O.结构中，v-ing既可以往前修饰S，也可以往后修饰V就是夹心，而实际上夹心并不是“可以往前修饰S，也可以往后修饰V” 。在S, v-ing, V. + O.这样的表达中，v-ing约定俗成只伴随修饰动词，见下例：

prep 2-104 The yield per acre of coffee berries varies enormously, because a single tree, depending on its size and on climate and altitude, is able to produce enough berries to make between one and twelve pounds of dried beans a year.

这个句子里depending不能改为dependent，因为depending和dependent的区别在于，前者伴随修饰谓语动词is able to produce，后者则是修饰名词single tree，会造成逻辑上不对——“一棵树依靠它的size”。


对于这段话我的理解是, S, v-ing, V. + O.这种结构语法上没有错,分词就是坐庄语言往后修饰的.
然后,http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_SC/thread-235781-1-1.html
GWD-1-Q29:
Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

1. Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000
   United States

presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted.

Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.

A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been counted in the 2000
United States
presidential election.

A new study of the 2000
United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.
A、没有根据的被动语态；代词they没有指代对象；



B is the best，原来一直以为confusing后面都是修饰faulty voting equipment的表明如何faulty，所以总觉得B很有问题，今天看了http://longdarkteatime.com/2004/09/presidential-election-or-presidential.html的分析，终于搞清楚，faulty voting equipment、confusing ballots、voter error、problem at polling places都是并列的原因，前面两项各估计有1.5~2Million，加起来有4～6 million



C、分词逻辑主语与句子主语不一致；



D、过去完成时没有根据



E、had not been counted过去完成时没有根据；分词位置有歧义（所谓“夹心”，既可以作为定语修饰主语，又可以作为状语修饰后面的谓语）；estimated 后面少that



很多时候的“夹心”是指在主语和谓语之间加入分词修饰。
然后我就凌乱了,这个到底有个明确的说法没,如果说这样用,语法上没错,需要判断逻辑是否有错,那我感觉任何句子你都能硬把中间的分词拉到修饰前半部分或者后半部分,那也就是说逻辑上怎么都是错的,那也就是说,这种句子永远都是错的,那不就是说,语法是错的.....   OMG , 我把自己绕进去了,谁来搭救下!


然后我就凌乱了,这个到底有个明确的说法没,如果说这样用,语法上没错,需要判断逻辑是否有错,那我感觉任何句子你都能硬把中间的分词拉到修饰前半部分或者后半部分,那也就是说逻辑上怎么都是错的,那也就是说,这种句子永远都是错的,那不就是说,语法是错的.....   OMG , 我把自己绕进去了,谁来搭救下!
GWD-1-Q29:
Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

1. Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000
   United States

presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted.

Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.

A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been counted in the 2000
United States presidential election.

A new study of the 2000
United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.
A、没有根据的被动语态；代词they没有指代对象；



B is the best，原来一直以为confusing后面都是修饰faulty voting equipment的表明如何faulty，所以总觉得B很有问题，今天看了http://longdarkteatime.com/2004/09/presidential-election-or-presidential.html的分析，终于搞清楚，faulty voting equipment、confusing ballots、voter error、problem at polling places都是并列的原因，前面两项各估计有1.5~2Million，加起来有4～6 million



C、分词逻辑主语与句子主语不一致；



D、过去完成时没有根据



E、had not been counted过去完成时没有根据；分词位置有歧义（所谓“夹心”，既可以作为定语修饰主语，又可以作为状语修饰后面的谓语）；estimated 后面少that



很多时候的“夹心”是指在主语和谓语之间加入分词修饰。
然后我就凌乱了,这个到底有个明确的说法没,如果说这样用,语法上没错,需要判断逻辑是否有错,那我感觉任何句子你都能硬把中间的分词拉到修饰前半部分或者后半部分,那也就是说逻辑上怎么都是错的,那也就是说,这种句子永远都是错的,那不就是说,语法是错的.....   OMG , 我把自己绕进去了,谁来搭救下!


然后我就凌乱了,这个到底有个明确的说法没,如果说这样用,语法上没错,需要判断逻辑是否有错,那我感觉任何句子你都能硬把中间的分词拉到修饰前半部分或者后半部分,那也就是说逻辑上怎么都是错的,那也就是说,这种句子永远都是错的,那不就是说,语法是错的.....   OMG , 我把自己绕进去了,谁来搭救下!
B.Sufficient和enough同义词重复；With引导独立主格结构有修饰歧义


然后补充解释中:
1. 关于夹心修饰(by aeoluseros)：

所以歧义修饰，是因为引发了不同的理解，而并不是语法上是否会有不同的修饰，所谓夹心修饰也是这个原则。很多人对“夹心修饰”都有过一个误解，认为S, v-ing, V. + O.结构中，v-ing既可以往前修饰S，也可以往后修饰V就是夹心，而实际上夹心并不是“可以往前修饰S，也可以往后修饰V” 。在S, v-ing, V. + O.这样的表达中，v-ing约定俗成只伴随修饰动词，见下例：

prep 2-104 The yield per acre of coffee berries varies enormously, because a single tree, depending on its size and on climate and altitude, is able to produce enough berries to make between one and twelve pounds of dried beans a year.

这个句子里depending不能改为dependent，因为depending和dependent的区别在于，前者伴随修饰谓语动词is able to produce，后者则是修饰名词single tree，会造成逻辑上不对——“一棵树依靠它的size”。


对于这段话我的理解是, S, v-ing, V. + O.这种结构语法上没有错,分词就是坐庄语言往后修饰的.
然后,http://forum.chasedream.com/GMAT_SC/thread-235781-1-1.html
GWD-1-Q29:
Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

1. Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000
   United States

presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted.

Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.

A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been counted in the 2000
United States presidential election.

A new study of the 2000
United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.
A、没有根据的被动语态；代词they没有指代对象；



B is the best，原来一直以为confusing后面都是修饰faulty voting equipment的表明如何faulty，所以总觉得B很有问题，今天看了http://longdarkteatime.com/2004/09/presidential-election-or-presidential.html的分析，终于搞清楚，faulty voting equipment、confusing ballots、voter error、problem at polling places都是并列的原因，前面两项各估计有1.5~2Million，加起来有4～6 million



C、分词逻辑主语与句子主语不一致；



D、过去完成时没有根据



E、had not been counted过去完成时没有根据；分词位置有歧义（所谓“夹心”，既可以作为定语修饰主语，又可以作为状语修饰后面的谓语）；estimated 后面少that



很多时候的“夹心”是指在主语和谓语之间加入分词修饰。
然后我就凌乱了,这个到底有个明确的说法没,如果说这样用,语法上没错,需要判断逻辑是否有错,那我感觉任何句子你都能硬把中间的分词拉到修饰前半部分或者后半部分,那也就是说逻辑上怎么都是错的,那也就是说,这种句子永远都是错的,那不就是说,语法是错的.....   OMG , 我把自己绕进去了,谁来搭救下!


然后我就凌乱了,这个到底有个明确的说法没,如果说这样用,语法上没错,需要判断逻辑是否有错,那我感觉任何句子你都能硬把中间的分词拉到修饰前半部分或者后半部分,那也就是说逻辑上怎么都是错的,那也就是说,这种句子永远都是错的,那不就是说,语法是错的.....   OMG , 我把自己绕进去了,谁来搭救下!
GWD-1-Q29:
Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

1. Faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places have been cited by a new study of the 2000
   United States

presidential election, which estimated that they did not count 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast.

Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, a new study of the 2000 United States presidential election has estimated that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted.

Citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes cast were not counted in the 2000 United States presidential election, a new study estimates.

A new study has cited faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places in estimating that 4 million to 6 million of the 100 million votes that were cast had not been counted in the 2000
United States presidential election.

A new study of the 2000
United States presidential election, citing faulty voting equipment, confusing ballots, voter error, and problems at polling places, has estimated 4 million to 6 million votes had not been counted of the 100 million votes cast.
A、没有根据的被动语态；代词they没有指代对象；



B is the best，原来一直以为confusing后面都是修饰faulty voting equipment的表明如何faulty，所以总觉得B很有问题，今天看了http://longdarkteatime.com/2004/09/presidential-election-or-presidential.html的分析，终于搞清楚，faulty voting equipment、confusing ballots、voter error、problem at polling places都是并列的原因，前面两项各估计有1.5~2Million，加起来有4～6 million



C、分词逻辑主语与句子主语不一致；



D、过去完成时没有根据



E、had not been counted过去完成时没有根据；分词位置有歧义（所谓“夹心”，既可以作为定语修饰主语，又可以作为状语修饰后面的谓语）；estimated 后面少that



很多时候的“夹心”是指在主语和谓语之间加入分词修饰。
然后我就凌乱了,这个到底有个明确的说法没,如果说这样用,语法上没错,需要判断逻辑是否有错,那我感觉任何句子你都能硬把中间的分词拉到修饰前半部分或者后半部分,那也就是说逻辑上怎么都是错的,那也就是说,这种句子永远都是错的,那不就是说,语法是错的.....   OMG , 我把自己绕进去了,谁来搭救下!


然后我就凌乱了,这个到底有个明确的说法没,如果说这样用,语法上没错,需要判断逻辑是否有错,那我感觉任何句子你都能硬把中间的分词拉到修饰前半部分或者后半部分,那也就是说逻辑上怎么都是错的,那也就是说,这种句子永远都是错的,那不就是说,语法是错的.....   OMG , 我把自己绕进去了,谁来搭救下!

je04tta

汗...我点了什么?为什么重复了...

qeec

顶下你的处女贴。。。