关于Ving用法—og12 sc 中21和og25比较，有点迷惑了

Suri在奋斗 · 发表于 2012-7-24 22:58:00

<div class="maxcode-quote">
我好菜啊，来小s的帖子学习。。。 个人感觉，这题就是考名词修饰语和动词修饰语的辨析，如果用 N,having done, 的结构那么having done 应该做名词修饰语修饰N , 表示在谓语动词以前N已经具备的性质，而用with的话应该做的是动词修饰语，修饰的是整个主句，只要这个with的内容可以attach到主句谓语动词上就可以。 我好菜啊。。。我自己都看不下去了。。。 等待baby姐的回帖。。。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">
<div style="text-align:left;">The intricate structure of the compound insect eye, having hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, help explain why scientists have assumed that it evolved independently of the vertebrate eye.</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(A) having hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, help explain why scientists have assumed that it</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(B) having hundreds of miniature eyes that are called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that they</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(C) with its hundreds of miniature eyes that are called ommatidia, helps explain scientists' assuming that they</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(D) with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, help explain scientists' assuming that it</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(E) with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that it</div> <div style="text-align:left;">也是一道having的修饰，这里的N1 of N2 OG的解释是说，having修饰了intrucate structure,逻辑上不对；潜在意思是with的修饰就不存在这样的问题了，with修饰了N2；</div> <div style="text-align:left;">可不可以这样理解，N1 of N2，ving，VO：ving修饰的是N1 of N2中的N1，但是在对于one of/some of...这样的结构中因为N1没有实质意义，因此要将N1 of  N2看成整体，求大家知道。到底怎样修饰的？这两天搞晕了！</div> <div style="text-align:left;">另外N1 of N2，-ed/ N1 of N2 + -ed的情况又是怎样的？ </div> <div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 miffyhui (2012/7/23 21:10:12)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 yakev6 (2012/7/24 22:45:26)</div> 
</div>
大叔您v5···小s O(∩_∩)O哈哈~ 希望baby姐姐看到来哈

babybearmm · 发表于 2012-7-25 05:34:57

或者这么理解：Subject, v-ing, V+O. 这样的形式（就说v-ing插入到主谓之间），v-ing修饰的是subject 这句话的subject就是structure. “但是在对于one of/some of...这样的结构中 ” ——至于这个问题，找subject就好（S-V agreement里专门讲过这种怎么找subject），该咋地就咋地 因此这里OG很强调having为啥错，with为啥对： The intricate structure of the compound insect eye having修饰subject: The intricate structure <strike>of the compound insect eye </strike> with结构是可以作为noun modifier修饰最近的名词的：the compound insect eye 这一点咱好好领会举一反三。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">
我好菜啊，来小s的帖子学习。。。 个人感觉，这题就是考名词修饰语和动词修饰语的辨析，如果用 N,having done, 的结构那么having done 应该做名词修饰语修饰N , 表示在谓语动词以前N已经具备的性质，而用with的话应该做的是动词修饰语，修饰的是整个主句，只要这个with的内容可以attach到主句谓语动词上就可以。 我好菜啊。。。我自己都看不下去了。。。 等待baby姐的回帖。。。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">
<div style="text-align:left;">The intricate structure of the compound insect eye, having hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, help explain why scientists have assumed that it evolved independently of the vertebrate eye.</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(A) having hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, help explain why scientists have assumed that it</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(B) having hundreds of miniature eyes that are called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that they</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(C) with its hundreds of miniature eyes that are called ommatidia, helps explain scientists' assuming that they</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(D) with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, help explain scientists' assuming that it</div> <div style="text-align:left;">(E) with its hundreds of miniature eyes called ommatidia, helps explain why scientists have assumed that it</div> <div style="text-align:left;">也是一道having的修饰，这里的N1 of N2 OG的解释是说，having修饰了intrucate structure,逻辑上不对；潜在意思是with的修饰就不存在这样的问题了，with修饰了N2；</div> <div style="text-align:left;">可不可以这样理解，N1 of N2，ving，VO：ving修饰的是N1 of N2中的N1，但是在对于one of/some of...这样的结构中因为N1没有实质意义，因此要将N1 of  N2看成整体，求大家知道。到底怎样修饰的？这两天搞晕了！</div> <div style="text-align:left;">另外N1 of N2，-ed/ N1 of N2 + -ed的情况又是怎样的？ </div> <div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 miffyhui (2012/7/23 21:10:12)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 yakev6 (2012/7/24 22:45:26)</div> 
</div>

miffyhui · 发表于 2012-7-25 15:54:29

谢谢大牛们的指点~~~~

ainiAnnie · 发表于 2012-7-27 17:14:56

受教again~

ainiAnnie · 发表于 2012-8-1 03:53:36

<div class="maxcode-quote">
做题时候的又一个小小的收获吧，主要是也想得到大家的看法和意见： 55. Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply part of the rent to a purchase later. (A) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply (B) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and to apply (C) programs; that enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, to apply (D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying (E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying 答案D中，OG的解释是applying following a nonrestrictive clause suggests incorrectly that the builders, not the family, are applying the rent. 这里对于【，v-ing】结构的使用又出现了一个小小的注意——就是虽然我们说【，v-ing】描述的preceding clause，但是通过这个题目我们发现，v-ing也是可以发生跳跃的（并且是可以跳从句的），这里就跳跃了前面的非限定性定从。。。。 不知道这个是个特例还是说非限定性定从都要跳过去的？ 如果是一个限定性定从呢？<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/5/4 19:34:24)</div> 
</div>
 以下是Ron关于DE项的解释： in the two choices (d) and (e), "applying..." shouldn't be a modifier at all, because it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. (number one, the families can move into new housing; number two, the families can apply part of the rent to a later purchase. these are different things.) so there's really no sense in nitpicking over what it can or can't modify, because it shouldn't be a modifier at all. 至于关于comma+v-ing是否可以跳跃的问题，我个人认为如果是非限制性定语从句，由于其去掉对句子基本无影响，那么comma+v-ing从理论上来讲不就不应该修饰其中的内容么? 但如果是限制性定语从句，那么要看具体的情况根据语境分析理解了。 一家之言，求证实，求指教。

Suri在奋斗 · 发表于 2012-8-1 07:17:34

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">
做题时候的又一个小小的收获吧，主要是也想得到大家的看法和意见： 55. Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply part of the rent to a purchase later. (A) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply (B) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and to apply (C) programs; that enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, to apply (D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying (E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying 答案D中，OG的解释是applying following a nonrestrictive clause suggests incorrectly that the builders, not the family, are applying the rent. 这里对于【，v-ing】结构的使用又出现了一个小小的注意——就是虽然我们说【，v-ing】描述的preceding clause，但是通过这个题目我们发现，v-ing也是可以发生跳跃的（并且是可以跳从句的），这里就跳跃了前面的非限定性定从。。。。 不知道这个是个特例还是说非限定性定从都要跳过去的？ 如果是一个限定性定从呢？<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/5/4 19:34:24)</div> 
</div>
 以下是Ron关于DE项的解释： in the two choices (d) and (e), "applying..." shouldn't be a modifier at all, because it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. (number one, the families can move into new housing; number two, the families can apply part of the rent to a later purchase. these are different things.) so there's really no sense in nitpicking over what it can or can't modify, because it shouldn't be a modifier at all. 至于关于comma+v-ing是否可以跳跃的问题，我个人认为如果是非限制性定语从句，由于其去掉对句子基本无影响，那么comma+v-ing从理论上来讲不就不应该修饰其中的内容么? 但如果是限制性定语从句，那么要看具体的情况根据语境分析理解了。 一家之言，求证实，求指教。<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 ainiAnnie (2012/8/1 3:53:36)</div> 
</div>
 宝贝帮你顶顶哈，等nn来，baby姐姐<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/44.gif" emoticon="[em:44]" alt="" />

babybearmm · 发表于 2012-8-1 12:54:48

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">
做题时候的又一个小小的收获吧，主要是也想得到大家的看法和意见： 55. Many house builders offer rent-to-buy programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply part of the rent to a purchase later. (A) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing and to apply (B) programs that enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing and to apply (C) programs; that enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, to apply (D) programs, which enables a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to move into new housing, applying (E) programs, which enable a family with insufficient savings for a conventional down payment to be able to move into new housing, applying 答案D中，OG的解释是applying following a nonrestrictive clause suggests incorrectly that the builders, not the family, are applying the rent. 这里对于【，v-ing】结构的使用又出现了一个小小的注意——就是虽然我们说【，v-ing】描述的preceding clause，但是通过这个题目我们发现，v-ing也是可以发生跳跃的（并且是可以跳从句的），这里就跳跃了前面的非限定性定从。。。。 不知道这个是个特例还是说非限定性定从都要跳过去的？ 如果是一个限定性定从呢？<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/5/4 19:34:24)</div> 
</div>
 以下是Ron关于DE项的解释： in the two choices (d) and (e), "applying..." shouldn't be a modifier at all, because it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. (number one, the families can move into new housing; number two, the families can apply part of the rent to a later purchase. these are different things.) so there's really no sense in nitpicking over what it can or can't modify, because it shouldn't be a modifier at all. 至于关于comma+v-ing是否可以跳跃的问题，我个人认为如果是非限制性定语从句，由于其去掉对句子基本无影响，那么comma+v-ing从理论上来讲不就不应该修饰其中的内容么? 但如果是限制性定语从句，那么要看具体的情况根据语境分析理解了。 一家之言，求证实，求指教。<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 ainiAnnie (2012/8/1 3:53:36)</div> 
</div>
 1. Ron解释得很赞. 重点：it doesn't actually *modify* anything in the preceding clause -- it gives another, separate aspect of the programs. 类似错误：Dickson's letter那道OG题目，用", outnumbering ..."之所以错，就是it gives another, separate aspect of the letter. 2. adverbial modifier哪有“跳跃修饰”的说法？本来adverbial modifier位置就相对灵活，不像noun modifier是就近修饰的。 3. 同样还是这个贴子之前Ron那几句总结："comma + v-ing"修饰的是preceding clause.

sheryter · 发表于 2012-8-11 14:14:59

看13页的贴，感觉还是没有定论说S, V+ing, VO这种形式，Ving到底修饰S还V。 感觉还是像Superbat说的，这种形式是夹心修饰，前后都可以修饰。 只要能够明确没有歧义，就能用，有歧义就不太好了。 像having amassed那道题，明显不能和draw同时发生，而且可以看出是修饰科学家的一种状态。那么就没有歧义。可以正确使用。还是句意为王。 不知道我的理解对不对。

zwhjzwhj · 发表于 2012-8-16 20:42:35

我想问一下，21题的这个“，having...，”算是插入语吗？

abjure · 发表于 2012-8-16 21:06:50

<div class="maxcode-quote">
我想问一下，21题的这个“，having...，”算是插入语吗？<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zwhjzwhj (2012/8/16 20:42:35)</div> 
</div>
 它是个noun modifer修饰主语。它是否是插入语重要吗？

关于Ving用法—og12 sc 中21和og25比较，有点迷惑了

所属分类: 小分队

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

浏览过的版块