OG 119的独立主格结构

dinosaure

119. Executives and federal officials say that the use of crack and cocaine is growing rapidly among workers, significantly compounding the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, which already are a cost to business of more than $100 billion a year.

(A) significantly compounding the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, which already are a cost to business of
(B) significantly compounding the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, which already cost business
(C) significantly compounding the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, already with business costs of
(D) significant in compounding the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, and already costing business
(E) significant in compounding the effects of drug and alcohol abuse, and already costs business

我认为选项C更恰当呀,with引导的独立主格结构;而正确答案的which,由于紧跟abuse,会让人觉得不是修饰effects而是修饰abuse吧;OG中对C的解释也看得不甚了了In C, already with business costs of... is awkward and unclear, failing to specify that those prior effects generate the cost.感觉太牵强了一个awkward and unclear就打发了

比如og 113题的正确答案是:visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches,with arms and legs hanging like stocks on a clotheline.

而不是定语从句引导的visitors to the park have often looked up into the leafy canopy and saw monkeys sleeping on the branches,whose arms and legs were hanging like socks on a clothesline.

[此贴子已经被作者于2004-10-8 12:06:52编辑过]

usdream

verbs is proprior to noun.

JerryGuan

独立主格是伴随整个句子的。

而本句中：cost 是前面的effect发出的，有更直接的联系。

另，shinogigi大牛曾说过：sth1. of sth2 and sth3., which does。。。这里的which可以指向前一个sth1.

paopao

119B不是独立主格

独立主格是(with) +N/ pron+ N/adj./adv/ing/-ved/不定式

这是介词短语 确实修饰不清 可修饰effects /abuse/等

而且不如B说明动作的发起者是谁

dinosaure

thanks jerryguan,给出了which指向的说明,这样使用定从确实比独立主格结构更能明确动作执行者.

to paopa独立主格是可以跟介词短语的

biss33

以下是引用usdream在2004-10-8 21:06:00的发言：

verbs is proprior to noun.

再问一下c选项，如果是因为优先级的问题，那么og上说的“failing to specify that those prior effects to gengrate  the cost“是什么意思？

薰衣紫草

B. which already cost business

C.already with business costs of

新东方总结出"优先级"的原则, 但他没有说明背后的原理(至少我上课的时候老师没有解释), 只说动词>名词.

其实这个原则很有用. 当把句子中的动词改成名词的时候, 原句中的主谓宾表达的意思就会消失. B中的意思是effects造成了business的开支(有一个动作在里面), 而C变成了business有一种什么样的开支(并没有说谁早成的). C用了with做伴随的方式将原文的动作发出者effects与动作承受者business costs割断关系, 使我们只知道有这样一种开支, 却不知道开支的原因, 即改变了原文的意思. 所以OG解释说: failing to specify that those prior effects to gengrate  the cost.

biss33

以下是引用薰衣紫草在2005-5-17 7:24:00的发言：

B. which already cost business

C.already with business costs of

新东方总结出"优先级"的原则, 但他没有说明背后的原理(至少我上课的时候老师没有解释), 只说动词>名词.

其实这个原则很有用. 当把句子中的动词改成名词的时候, 原句中的主谓宾表达的意思就会消失. B中的意思是effects造成了business的开支(有一个动作在里面), 而C变成了business有一种什么样的开支(并没有说谁早成的). C用了with做伴随的方式将原文的动作发出者effects与动作承受者business costs割断关系, 使我们只知道有这样一种开支, 却不知道开支的原因, 即改变了原文的意思. 所以OG解释说: failing to specify that those prior effects to gengrate  the cost.

讲得真详细，太感谢了！！

mmfoolish

以下是引用薰衣紫草在2005-5-17 7:24:00的发言：

B. which already cost business

C.already with business costs of

新东方总结出"优先级"的原则, 但他没有说明背后的原理(至少我上课的时候老师没有解释), 只说动词>名词.

其实这个原则很有用. 当把句子中的动词改成名词的时候, 原句中的主谓宾表达的意思就会消失. B中的意思是effects造成了business的开支(有一个动作在里面), 而C变成了business有一种什么样的开支(并没有说谁早成的). C用了with做伴随的方式将原文的动作发出者effects与动作承受者business costs割断关系, 使我们只知道有这样一种开支, 却不知道开支的原因, 即改变了原文的意思. 所以OG解释说: failing to specify that those prior effects to gengrate  the cost.

那么113题呢？正确答案也是用了with结构，没有使用whose的结构，是否会造成以上的问题？谢谢

arrow9999

应该不会吧,113,with前边只有一个动词,而119有growing 和 compouding两个动词