跪求：OG12-23， with后面为什么可以加句子

自由风暴

同问！！同楼上！！谢谢！！……

geniealice

128. Australian embryologists have found evidence that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolving as a kind of snorkel.
(A)    that suggests that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal, and its trunk originally evolving
(B)    that has suggested the elephant descended from an aquatic animal, its trunk originally evolving
(C)    suggesting that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal with its trunk originally evolved
(D)    to suggest that the elephant had descended from an aquatic animal and its trunk originally evolved
(E)    to suggest that the elephant is descended from an aquatic animal and that its trunk originally evolved
OA：E
OG上说C错误的原因是with后面跟了独立的句子。
its trunk originally evolved as a kind of snorkel. 的确是一个句子主谓宾，evolved（不及物动词）是谓语，evolve as “逐渐成为”
对比：
Once designed with its weight concentrated in a metal center, the discus used in track competition is now lined with lead around the perimeter, thereby improving stability in flight and resulting in longer throws.
此处如果with后面如果是句子应该是 its weight was concentrated in a metal center. --> 题中的成分不是句子“with 宾＋宾补”
欢迎拍砖。。。

superbat28

LS， good explanation~

而且，我感觉，OG Q128，在解释中还是存在一个小小的逻辑问题。
首先，GMAC认定句意上，应该是两个并列的从句，它已经先入为主的确定 its trunk originally evolved 后面一系列话应该是一个句子；而不应该是一个短语。

第二，evolve这个词，过去时和V-ed形容词，长的一样，所以难判断它到底是前者还是后者，这是一个必然讨厌的问题。

诚然，我们可以把C选项，with后面的结构看成【with的复合介宾结构】，但是GMAC它先入为主的觉着：“这里在逻辑上应该是一个句子，而又因为evlove在这里可以做过去时，它可以被认定为一个句子。”所以，它给出了OG上的那段解释。

自由风暴

明白了！感谢！感觉还是要在实战中体会啊

自由风暴

感谢NN解答！我刚刚翻出了以前一个你发了一个with的帖子好好读了下，看来题做得还是少了，得多从题中体会啊

superbat28

感谢NN解答！我刚刚翻出了以前一个你发了一个with的帖子好好读了下，看来题做得还是少了，得多从题中体会啊

-- by 会员 自由风暴 (2011/9/23 10:55:08)

此言差矣。多思考 远远大于  多做题。
那些东西只是通过prep和OG得出的体会，可能说针对with特别想深究的时候，又看了看先辈们整理的总结，最后加进了几道OG10。
但总体，就是这么多题。所以，刷OG，不是单纯的刷，而是要去想，去感受。
做题这个量的问题，每个人都有每个人的把握，这个看自己。但是，真心不要为做题而做题~要去思考每道题~over~哇咔。

疯狂的狐狸

from RON:
“with" occupies a rather special place in the hearts of gmac's problem writers. in other words, "with" is NOT used like other prepositions, and so, accordingly, there are some unique points to absorb about its use.
the clearest example of this special usage is in the non-underlined part of og12 problem 29:
Theend of the eighteenth century saw the emergence of prize-stock breeding, with individual bulls and cows receiving awards, fetching unprecedented prices, and exciting enormous interest whenever they were put on show.
with individual bulls and cows receiving awards, fetching unprecedented prices, and exciting enormous interest
this usage directly violates the principles for the use of other prepositions -- specifically, "with + noun + VERBing" is allowed even though the VERBing, rather than the noun, is the intended object of "with". (i.e., in the sentence above, prize-stock breeding was not "with bulls and cows" -- it was specifically with prizes awarded to these animals.)
this is veeeerrry interesting, since identical constructions with other prepositions are definitely incorrect. for instance, i've never heard of people biting dogs is incorrect, because the intended object of the preposition is the action (the biting) rather than the noun ("people"); instead, one could write i've never heard that people have bitten dogs.

a similar usage can be found in og12 #23, with a past participle rather than an ING form ("with its weight concentrated...")

Once designed with its weight concentrated in a metal center, the discus used in track competition is now lined with lead around the perimeter, thereby improving stability in flight and resulting inlonger throws.
so, it is confirmed: "with" has its own special set of rules, independent of (and contradictory to) the rules for other pronouns.