关于Ving用法—og12 sc 中21和og25比较，有点迷惑了

babybearmm · 发表于 2012-3-13 02:21:17

这句话是： Bla bla than any other nation, Japan's population bla bla bla. 就说把"Japan's population"和"any other nation"作比较，不合逻辑 应该是比较 Japan   vs.   any other nation 或者是 population of Japan      vs.     population of any other nation

leonnong · 发表于 2012-3-13 12:34:37

<div class="maxcode-quote">
这句话是： Bla bla than any other nation, Japan's population bla bla bla. 就说把"Japan's population"和"any other nation"作比较，不合逻辑 应该是比较 Japan   vs.   any other nation 或者是 population of Japan      vs.     population of any other nation<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/13 2:21:17)</div> 
</div>
 是啊~baby姐观察的真仔细，真的一点细微的差别就导致逻辑的错误了~~谢谢baby的分析！~~收获了<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/0.gif" emoticon="[em:0]" alt="" />

leonnong · 发表于 2012-3-13 14:22:49

<div class="maxcode-quote">
其实无论从语法还是意思上来说，这题正确选项"using..."都可以说是perfect! 如果你实在非常十分无比喜欢用based on，你可以说 Scholars have painted X based on Y. 这里你就把noun modifier "based on Y" 放在了它修饰的对象X旁边了，正确。 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/2/13 19:29:11)</div> [/quote] baby!另外我又想到一个问题！看到别人帖子里说base的用法除了base sth on sth, 也可以用base on sth!那么是否可以把B中的it去掉改成Basing on various ancient writers' accounts呢？而OG中对B的解释是it的指代不清楚！那么也证明了把it去掉也对呢，即basing on这样的结构也可以呢？

babybearmm · 发表于 2012-3-13 15:30:35

不行，base是继物动词 你可以说"basing A on B"，但不能说"basing on B" 没有"base on sth" 的，可以有"based on sth." 就相当于 A is based on sth. A, based on sth, is bla bla bla

leonnong · 发表于 2012-3-13 15:51:32

<div class="maxcode-quote">
不行，base是继物动词 你可以说"basing A on B"，但不能说"basing on B" 没有"base on sth" 的，可以有"based on sth." 就相当于 A is based on sth. A, based on sth. is bla bla bla<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/13 15:30:35)</div> 
</div>
 太感谢baby了~这个问题终于弄明白了！~<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/13.gif" emoticon="[em:13]" alt="" />

zhongshanlh · 发表于 2012-3-16 21:51:04

感谢baby姐和lz的分析总结，实在是太好啦！但是我看完之后有两个疑惑点。 1.关于这个例子 For members of the seventeenth-century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, a method to protect warriors against enemy arrows and spears. A. a method to protect B. as a method protecting C.

rotecting（C） D. as a protection of E. to protect 这个例子中前面的部分animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment 核心部分其实是一个主系表结构，但是好像之前在讨论过程中并没有区分主谓宾与主系表结构的不同，我觉得应该还是区分一下吧。 个人认为在    主系表，v-ing 这种句子结构中现在分词v-ing部分不表示伴随，不表示结果，只表示对前面句子主语信息的一种补充和说明，说白了还是个noun modifier。 不知道baby姐觉得我这个观点是否正确。 2.对于 SVO，v-ing这种结构，baby姐你提到了使用的时候必须遵循a与b两条原则，即： (A) it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of thepreceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause; AND (B) one of the following is true: (1) the "ing" action isSIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action; - i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my armswildly (2) the "ing" action is a DIRECTAND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action. - i got a 100 on the most recent exam,bringing my average up to 91 我想问的是这A、B两条原则之间是什么关系啊。。。？我看了以后总觉得有些混乱。我觉得只需要B原则两种情况来验证SVO，v-ing是否合乎逻辑就可以了吧？在B成立的情况下A是不是一定就必然成立了呢？如果是的话那么A原则其实就没有必要提出来了吧？ 3.第三个问题是 还是在 SVO，v-ing这种情况下，我们必须判断出V-ing到底是表示伴随还是表示的结果吧？如果表示的是对主句中V动作的伴随，那么主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的（包括过去完成时和现在完成时），因为完成时态表示动作已经结束了，怎么还能够伴随呢？ 但是如果v-ing表示的对前句一种结果，那么对前句的V的失态就没有严格的要求了。 不知道baby姐觉得我上面所述的几个观点是否正确。麻烦baby姐解答啦~~<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/32.gif" emoticon="[em:32]" alt="" />

babybearmm · 发表于 2012-3-17 01:09:12

<div class="maxcode-quote">
感谢baby姐和lz的分析总结，实在是太好啦！但是我看完之后有两个疑惑点。 1.关于这个例子 For members of the seventeenth-century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, a method to protect warriors against enemy arrows and spears. A. a method to protect B. as a method protecting C.

rotecting（C） D. as a protection of E. to protect 这个例子中前面的部分animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment 核心部分其实是一个主系表结构，但是好像之前在讨论过程中并没有区分主谓宾与主系表结构的不同，我觉得应该还是区分一下吧。 个人认为在    主系表，v-ing 这种句子结构中现在分词v-ing部分不表示伴随，不表示结果，只表示对前面句子主语信息的一种补充和说明，说白了还是个noun modifier。 不知道baby姐觉得我这个观点是否正确。 No. Ron昨天讲课又一次强调 comma + v-ing 如果comma前面是clause，那么v-ing一定是adverbial modifier，万万不能理解为noun modifier 如果comma前面不存在clause，那么就是noun modifier，这里的典型例子是"Neuroscientists, having .... in the past 20 years, are now ..." 2.对于 SVO，v-ing这种结构，baby姐你提到了使用的时候必须遵循a与b两条原则，即： (A) it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause; AND (B) one of the following is true: (1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action; - i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly (2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action. - i got a 100 on the most recent exam,bringing my average up to 91 我想问的是这A、B两条原则之间是什么关系啊。。。？我看了以后总觉得有些混乱。我觉得只需要B原则两种情况来验证SVO，v-ing是否合乎逻辑就可以了吧？在B成立的情况下A是不是一定就必然成立了呢？如果是的话那么A原则其实就没有必要提出来了吧？ Dear, this is a logical issue.... What is "and"?  What does it mean by "one of the following is true"? So the logical relationship is A       and      B (1 or 2) Here's an example: My brother tricked me, disappointing dad. I was tricked by my brother, disappointing dad.

lease distinguish these two sentences meaningfully: who causes dad's disappointment, in each sentence? "在B成立的情况下A是不是一定就必然成立了呢？如果是的话那么A原则其实就没有必要提出来了吧？" Wrong, definitely. If you don't understand "and", please check out Ron's two most recent lectures, which discuss the usage of "and" in SC. <a href="http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm</a> 3.第三个问题是 还是在 SVO，v-ing这种情况下，我们必须判断出V-ing到底是表示伴随还是表示的结果吧？如果表示的是对主句中V动作的伴随，那么主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的（包括过去完成时和现在完成时），因为完成时态表示动作已经结束了，怎么还能够伴随呢？ 但是如果v-ing表示的对前句一种结果，那么对前句的V的失态就没有严格的要求了。 I do NOT suggest you remember this kind of stuff "如果表示的是对主句中V动作的伴随，那么主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的（包括过去完成时和现在完成时）". All you need to do is to understand the principle and, when facing a particular sentence, ask yourself, "does the v-ing make sense here?" I have found several examples (correct sentences) in which the main clause uses perfect tense and is followed by a v-ing adverbial modifier. So for me, I totally ignore this so-called "rule", and I have found Ron's summary above is golden - I particularly mean, every word is precise (if you don't understand me, think about why he uses "preceding clause" rather than "main clause"....). 不知道baby姐觉得我上面所述的几个观点是否正确。麻烦baby姐解答啦~~<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/32.gif" emoticon="[em:32]" alt="" /><div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/3/16 21:51:04)</div> 
</div>

zhongshanlh · 发表于 2012-3-17 13:00:38

thank you so much! allow me some time to consider what you said in depth. 

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">
感谢baby姐和lz的分析总结，实在是太好啦！但是我看完之后有两个疑惑点。 1.关于这个例子 For members of the seventeenth-century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, a method to protect warriors against enemy arrows and spears. A. a method to protect B. as a method protecting C.

rotecting（C） D. as a protection of E. to protect 这个例子中前面的部分animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment 核心部分其实是一个主系表结构，但是好像之前在讨论过程中并没有区分主谓宾与主系表结构的不同，我觉得应该还是区分一下吧。 个人认为在    主系表，v-ing 这种句子结构中现在分词v-ing部分不表示伴随，不表示结果，只表示对前面句子主语信息的一种补充和说明，说白了还是个noun modifier。 不知道baby姐觉得我这个观点是否正确。 No. Ron昨天讲课又一次强调 comma + v-ing 如果comma前面是clause，那么v-ing一定是adverbial modifier，万万不能理解为noun modifier 如果comma前面不存在clause，那么就是noun modifier，这里的典型例子是"Neuroscientists, having .... in the past 20 years, are now ..." 2.对于 SVO，v-ing这种结构，baby姐你提到了使用的时候必须遵循a与b两条原则，即： (A) it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause; AND (B) one of the following is true: (1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action; - i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly (2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action. - i got a 100 on the most recent exam,bringing my average up to 91 我想问的是这A、B两条原则之间是什么关系啊。。。？我看了以后总觉得有些混乱。我觉得只需要B原则两种情况来验证SVO，v-ing是否合乎逻辑就可以了吧？在B成立的情况下A是不是一定就必然成立了呢？如果是的话那么A原则其实就没有必要提出来了吧？ Dear, this is a logical issue.... What is "and"?  What does it mean by "one of the following is true"? So the logical relationship is A       and      B (1 or 2) Here's an example: My brother tricked me, disappointing dad. I was tricked by my brother, disappointing dad.

lease distinguish these two sentences meaningfully: who causes dad's disappointment, in each sentence? "在B成立的情况下A是不是一定就必然成立了呢？如果是的话那么A原则其实就没有必要提出来了吧？" Wrong, definitely. If you don't understand "and", please check out Ron's two most recent lectures, which discuss the usage of "and" in SC. <a href="http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm</a> 3.第三个问题是 还是在 SVO，v-ing这种情况下，我们必须判断出V-ing到底是表示伴随还是表示的结果吧？如果表示的是对主句中V动作的伴随，那么主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的（包括过去完成时和现在完成时），因为完成时态表示动作已经结束了，怎么还能够伴随呢？ 但是如果v-ing表示的对前句一种结果，那么对前句的V的失态就没有严格的要求了。 I do NOT suggest you remember this kind of stuff "如果表示的是对主句中V动作的伴随，那么主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的（包括过去完成时和现在完成时）". All you need to do is to understand the principle and, when facing a particular sentence, ask yourself, "does the v-ing make sense here?" I have found several examples (correct sentences) in which the main clause uses perfect tense and is followed by a v-ing adverbial modifier. So for me, I totally ignore this so-called "rule", and I have found Ron's summary above is golden - I particularly mean, every word is precise (if you don't understand me, think about why he uses "preceding clause" rather than "main clause"....). 不知道baby姐觉得我上面所述的几个观点是否正确。麻烦baby姐解答啦~~<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/32.gif" emoticon="[em:32]" alt="" /><div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/3/16 21:51:04)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/17 1:09:12)</div> 
</div>

zhongshanlh · 发表于 2012-3-17 15:27:17

谢谢baby姐姐的耐心相信解答，我后来对于给出的解释又仔细想来想，对于自己之前的3个问题，思考后现在是这么认为的。 1.第一个问题就是  主系表，v-ing   结构中（还是那个shields的题目为例），我觉得我们知道这个v-ing成分是作为adverbial modifier而不是个noun modifier就可以了（因为noun modifier是要遵循就近原则的，就会产生问题了）。但是在实际做题过程中，如果我发现，v-ing前面是一个主系表结构的话，在判断是否正确的时候，我就不会再根据之前    SVO，v-ing  使用的是否正确的A与B两条原则来判断了，因为主系表结构中前面的主句中不是一个事件或者是一个动作，而只是阐明了主语的一种属性。所以在这种情况下我需要判断的是这个v-ing结构是否合理的阐明了前面句子成分的一种属性、状态、用途、目的等等等。因为我实在显不出在这种主系表，v-ing 结构中还怎么能根据A和B两条原则来判断是否使用正确。 2.对于第二个问题A与B两天原则的关系，想了想搞清楚啦，哈哈~谢谢baby姐。 3.对于第3个问题，现在我的理解就是还是不能根据rule来死记硬背判断，正如baby姐所说，记住A和B两条判断原则后，遇到具体问题具体分析。 对于baby姐提到的I have found several examples (correct sentences) in which the main clause uses perfect tense and is followed by a v-ing adverbial modifier.希望baby姐能多贴一些这样的例子出来，熟能生巧，我自己在遇到后也会及时总结出来。 以上就是后来思考以后的一些想法。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">
感谢baby姐和lz的分析总结，实在是太好啦！但是我看完之后有两个疑惑点。 1.关于这个例子 For members of the seventeenth-century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, a method to protect warriors against enemy arrows and spears. A. a method to protect B. as a method protecting C.

rotecting（C） D. as a protection of E. to protect 这个例子中前面的部分animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment 核心部分其实是一个主系表结构，但是好像之前在讨论过程中并没有区分主谓宾与主系表结构的不同，我觉得应该还是区分一下吧。 个人认为在    主系表，v-ing 这种句子结构中现在分词v-ing部分不表示伴随，不表示结果，只表示对前面句子主语信息的一种补充和说明，说白了还是个noun modifier。 不知道baby姐觉得我这个观点是否正确。 No. Ron昨天讲课又一次强调 comma + v-ing 如果comma前面是clause，那么v-ing一定是adverbial modifier，万万不能理解为noun modifier 如果comma前面不存在clause，那么就是noun modifier，这里的典型例子是"Neuroscientists, having .... in the past 20 years, are now ..." 2.对于 SVO，v-ing这种结构，baby姐你提到了使用的时候必须遵循a与b两条原则，即： (A) it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause; AND (B) one of the following is true: (1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action; - i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly (2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action. - i got a 100 on the most recent exam,bringing my average up to 91 我想问的是这A、B两条原则之间是什么关系啊。。。？我看了以后总觉得有些混乱。我觉得只需要B原则两种情况来验证SVO，v-ing是否合乎逻辑就可以了吧？在B成立的情况下A是不是一定就必然成立了呢？如果是的话那么A原则其实就没有必要提出来了吧？ Dear, this is a logical issue.... What is "and"?  What does it mean by "one of the following is true"? So the logical relationship is A       and      B (1 or 2) Here's an example: My brother tricked me, disappointing dad. I was tricked by my brother, disappointing dad.

lease distinguish these two sentences meaningfully: who causes dad's disappointment, in each sentence? "在B成立的情况下A是不是一定就必然成立了呢？如果是的话那么A原则其实就没有必要提出来了吧？" Wrong, definitely. If you don't understand "and", please check out Ron's two most recent lectures, which discuss the usage of "and" in SC. <a href="http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm</a> 3.第三个问题是 还是在 SVO，v-ing这种情况下，我们必须判断出V-ing到底是表示伴随还是表示的结果吧？如果表示的是对主句中V动作的伴随，那么主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的（包括过去完成时和现在完成时），因为完成时态表示动作已经结束了，怎么还能够伴随呢？ 但是如果v-ing表示的对前句一种结果，那么对前句的V的失态就没有严格的要求了。 I do NOT suggest you remember this kind of stuff "如果表示的是对主句中V动作的伴随，那么主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的（包括过去完成时和现在完成时）". All you need to do is to understand the principle and, when facing a particular sentence, ask yourself, "does the v-ing make sense here?" I have found several examples (correct sentences) in which the main clause uses perfect tense and is followed by a v-ing adverbial modifier. So for me, I totally ignore this so-called "rule", and I have found Ron's summary above is golden - I particularly mean, every word is precise (if you don't understand me, think about why he uses "preceding clause" rather than "main clause"....). 不知道baby姐觉得我上面所述的几个观点是否正确。麻烦baby姐解答啦~~<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/32.gif" emoticon="[em:32]" alt="" /><div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/3/16 21:51:04)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/17 1:09:12)</div> 
</div>

babybearmm · 发表于 2012-3-17 16:04:54

<div class="maxcode-quote">
谢谢baby姐姐的耐心相信解答，我后来对于给出的解释又仔细想来想，对于自己之前的3个问题，思考后现在是这么认为的。 1.第一个问题就是  主系表，v-ing   结构中（还是那个shields的题目为例），我觉得我们知道这个v-ing成分是作为adverbial modifier而不是个noun modifier就可以了（因为noun modifier是要遵循就近原则的，就会产生问题了）。但是在实际做题过程中，如果我发现，v-ing前面是一个主系表结构的话，在判断是否正确的时候，我就不会再根据之前    SVO，v-ing  使用的是否正确的A与B两条原则来判断了，因为主系表结构中前面的主句中不是一个事件或者是一个动作，而只是阐明了主语的一种属性。所以在这种情况下我需要判断的是这个v-ing结构是否合理的阐明了前面句子成分的一种属性、状态、用途、目的等等等。因为我实在显不出在这种主系表，v-ing 结构中还怎么能根据A和B两条原则来判断是否使用正确。 我举个简单的例子，这样的说法在英语里非常常见： I am a Harvard student, entering my Senior year. I am a business woman, running my own company. 没有什么“主系表”的特殊之处...说实话，我这种没怎么学中学语法的人，也是最近才知道“主系表”什么意思（别笑话我哈，我经常听中文一堆语法术语就跟听天书），反正Manhattan SC里根本都没有这个术语，我觉得记住术语有啥用呢？没用吧。 2.对于第二个问题A与B两天原则的关系，想了想搞清楚啦，哈哈~谢谢baby姐。 3.对于第3个问题，现在我的理解就是还是不能根据rule来死记硬背判断，正如baby姐所说，记住A和B两条判断原则后，遇到具体问题具体分析。 对于baby姐提到的I have found several examples (correct sentences) in which the main clause uses perfect tense and is followed by a v-ing adverbial modifier.希望baby姐能多贴一些这样的例子出来，熟能生巧，我自己在遇到后也会及时总结出来。 真的不好意思，我想不起了。应该是近段时间在我的日记贴或者suri的日记贴里讨论过的某道题，恰好就是个main clause是have done，然后加v-ing modifier的。因为我自己脑子里从来就没有过“主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的”这样的想法，所以也不会刻意去记这个outlier，就好比一个我根本看不上眼的rule我就不会去研究它。你实在感兴趣可以搜一下，或者今后做题留意一下，sorry啊 以上就是后来思考以后的一些想法。 

<div class="maxcode-quote">

<div class="maxcode-quote">
感谢baby姐和lz的分析总结，实在是太好啦！但是我看完之后有两个疑惑点。 1.关于这个例子 For members of the seventeenth-century Ashanti nation in Africa, animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment, a method to protect warriors against enemy arrows and spears. A. a method to protect B. as a method protecting C.

rotecting（C） D. as a protection of E. to protect 这个例子中前面的部分animal-hide shields with wooden frames were essential items of military equipment 核心部分其实是一个主系表结构，但是好像之前在讨论过程中并没有区分主谓宾与主系表结构的不同，我觉得应该还是区分一下吧。 个人认为在    主系表，v-ing 这种句子结构中现在分词v-ing部分不表示伴随，不表示结果，只表示对前面句子主语信息的一种补充和说明，说白了还是个noun modifier。 不知道baby姐觉得我这个观点是否正确。 No. Ron昨天讲课又一次强调 comma + v-ing 如果comma前面是clause，那么v-ing一定是adverbial modifier，万万不能理解为noun modifier 如果comma前面不存在clause，那么就是noun modifier，这里的典型例子是"Neuroscientists, having .... in the past 20 years, are now ..." 2.对于 SVO，v-ing这种结构，baby姐你提到了使用的时候必须遵循a与b两条原则，即： (A) it MODIFIES THE ENTIRE ACTION of the preceding clause, and it APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT of that clause; AND (B) one of the following is true: (1) the "ing" action is SIMULTANEOUS with, and SUBORDINATE to, the main action; - i ran down the sidewalk, flapping my arms wildly (2) the "ing" action is a DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the main action. - i got a 100 on the most recent exam,bringing my average up to 91 我想问的是这A、B两条原则之间是什么关系啊。。。？我看了以后总觉得有些混乱。我觉得只需要B原则两种情况来验证SVO，v-ing是否合乎逻辑就可以了吧？在B成立的情况下A是不是一定就必然成立了呢？如果是的话那么A原则其实就没有必要提出来了吧？ Dear, this is a logical issue.... What is "and"?  What does it mean by "one of the following is true"? So the logical relationship is A       and      B (1 or 2) Here's an example: My brother tricked me, disappointing dad. I was tricked by my brother, disappointing dad.

lease distinguish these two sentences meaningfully: who causes dad's disappointment, in each sentence? "在B成立的情况下A是不是一定就必然成立了呢？如果是的话那么A原则其实就没有必要提出来了吧？" Wrong, definitely. If you don't understand "and", please check out Ron's two most recent lectures, which discuss the usage of "and" in SC. <a href="http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.manhattangmat.com/thursdays-with-ron.cfm</a> 3.第三个问题是 还是在 SVO，v-ing这种情况下，我们必须判断出V-ing到底是表示伴随还是表示的结果吧？如果表示的是对主句中V动作的伴随，那么主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的（包括过去完成时和现在完成时），因为完成时态表示动作已经结束了，怎么还能够伴随呢？ 但是如果v-ing表示的对前句一种结果，那么对前句的V的失态就没有严格的要求了。 I do NOT suggest you remember this kind of stuff "如果表示的是对主句中V动作的伴随，那么主句中的V是一定不能使用完成时态的（包括过去完成时和现在完成时）". All you need to do is to understand the principle and, when facing a particular sentence, ask yourself, "does the v-ing make sense here?" I have found several examples (correct sentences) in which the main clause uses perfect tense and is followed by a v-ing adverbial modifier. So for me, I totally ignore this so-called "rule", and I have found Ron's summary above is golden - I particularly mean, every word is precise (if you don't understand me, think about why he uses "preceding clause" rather than "main clause"....). 不知道baby姐觉得我上面所述的几个观点是否正确。麻烦baby姐解答啦~~<img src="/static/legacy-emoticon/32.gif" emoticon="[em:32]" alt="" /><div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/3/16 21:51:04)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 babybearmm (2012/3/17 1:09:12)</div> 
</div>
<div style="text-align:right;">-- by 会员 zhongshanlh (2012/3/17 15:27:17)</div> 
</div>

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