再开帖重问！~一道介词短语放名词后修饰歧义

stellalights

Sunspots, vortices ofgas associated with strong electromagnetic activity, are visible as darkspots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on the Sun’s poles or equator.

(A) are visible as darkspots on the surface of the Sun but have never been sighted on

(B) are visible asdark spots that never have been sighted on thesurface of the Sun

(C) appear on thesurface of the Sun as dark spots although neversighted at

(D) appearas dark spots on the surface of the Sun, although never having been sighted at

(E) appear as darkspots on the Sun’s surface, which have never been sighted on

选A。我的疑问是 on the surface of the Sun放在darkspots后面没有修饰名词的歧义吗？？？


再来看og上另一道题目
Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated international disputes over uninhabited islands.

A. Because there are provisions of the new maritime code that provide that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, they have already stimulated

B. Because the new maritime code provides that even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas, it has already stimulated

C. Even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large sea areas under provisions of the new maritime code, already stimulating

D. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under maritime code, this has already stimulated

E. Because even tiny islets can be the basis for claims to the fisheries and oil fields of large areas under provisions of the new maritime code, which is already stimulating
选B。og对C的解释是说 under provisions of the new naritime code有修饰 sea areas的嫌疑。

既然这样。那第一道题就没有歧义吗？？

vengaleo

我认为判断介词短语放到名词后面修饰名词一般情况可以认为是定语从句的缩减，例如
i want the book on the shelf.===>i want the book that is on the shelf.
所以判断介词短语放到名词后面是否引起歧义只需要将定语从句补齐，看看意思是否别扭就好了，第一题很显然是合理的，而第二题就会显得很别扭。

郁离

我觉得第一题中的on the surface of the sun本身就不一定是修饰谓语的，如果说它是修饰前面的名词darkspots也完全讲得通，并且没有扭曲原句意思（因为A就是原句，我们无法判断这个on the surface到底是修饰谓语还是修饰名词）；更重要的是，这个修饰不会干扰原句的表达，意思合情合理。
第二题中，之所以说under provisions of the new maritime code有歧义，是因为如果它修饰前面的名词sea area，扭曲了原句的意思，影响了原句的表达，且不合逻辑。

stellalights

郁离 发表于 2013-4-15 08:38
我觉得第一题中的on the surface of the sun本身就不一定是修饰谓语的，如果说它是修饰前面的名词darkspots ...

我觉得第一句中是作状语的，你看后面未划线的部分，保持平行。但是又觉得放在名词后有歧义

郁离

个人觉得：1. 这个歧义不明显；2. 即使真的有歧义，也不影响句子的表达。因此，至少不应该作为排除点。

enkyklios

觉得第二道题的错误不在于他说的那个修饰岐义，even, ……already stimulating . 这句话有问题。
根本就不是人话

Jointfly

vengaleo 发表于 2013-9-10 09:11
我认为判断介词短语放到名词后面修饰名词一般情况可以认为是定语从句的缩减，例如
i want the book on the  ...

同意！