OG13-29 Emily Dickinson E选项和A选项差别求解

whitewoman

Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering her letters to anyone else.

(A)    Dickinson were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumbering

(B)    Dickinson were written over a period that begins a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ended shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber

(C)    Dickinson, written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and that ends shortly before Emily's death in 1886 and outnumbering

(D)    Dickinson, which were written over a period beginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother, ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, and outnumbering

(E)     Dickinson, which were written over a periodbeginning a few years before Susan's marriage to Emily's brother and ending shortly before Emily's death in 1886, outnumber           

请问为何不能使用A选项，OG给的解释有二。第一个解释说了A选项过度强调了写作时间(... gives too much emphasis to the period when Dickinson's letters were written)，而我们应该强调写作数量，故要选E，但是谁说这句子非要强调数量呢，而且不是说转移强调部分，谓语与非谓语对调的选项是错误的吗。
第二个解释为it is unclear what outnumbering refers to. 这种现在分词作修饰逻辑主语不就是主句主语么，所以应该修饰主句letters，为何有歧义呢

请大神们为我解释一下，感谢之至！

不辣的皮特

贴下ron的解释：this is exactly the problem: the phrase in question, "outnumbering ...", is NOT, in any way whatsoever, a "(direct/indirect) result" of the time period over which the letters were written. these are tw completely independent and unrelated observations about the letters, and so they can't be placed into the sort of construction that appears in choice (a). this is thus not a grammatical problem so much as a problem of clarity, but it's still a problem.

examples:
my brother, who ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduated in 1994. --> correct; his eating bagel bites had no impact on his graduation date.
my brother ate bagel bites for breakfast every single day of his high school career, graduating in 1994. --> incorrect; these are two unrelated observations, but this construction erroneously implies some sort of relationship.

我觉得这题从语法上去解释确实太牵强

atto

同惑，同求解！
從語義上來說真不見得是在強調數量，A、E兩句不同的語法結構直接導致句子的語義中心轉移而且都合理；從語法上來說outnumbering的用法真沒錯。

云游

关于V-ing的用法，有一个帖子，楼主请看一下，我觉得挺好。http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-764753-1-1.html
outnumbering如此处表结果，修饰前面的主句，逻辑上不连贯。
Outnumbering如表示伴随，逻辑主语和主句主语要相似，如果修饰emily dickinson's letters的话，两者相聚是在太远....不符合modification的原则
Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington, outnumbering her letters to anyone else, were written....这样的话我感觉还可以

laihong

换一个角度来看， outnumber    比较的同类的people or things ， 所以这里letters之间比较才对

whitewoman

云游 发表于 2013-6-22 12:17
关于V-ing的用法，有一个帖子，楼主请看一下，我觉得挺好。http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-764753-1-1 ...

也就是说如果outnumbering放句首，这句话就是correct的对吗

云游

whitewoman 发表于 2013-6-27 13:43
也就是说如果outnumbering放句首，这句话就是correct的对吗

个人觉得这样应该就没有问题了，对于modifier而言，结构上需要尽可能的靠近其modify的对象~不然会出现像A选项中的问题，outnumbering要结构上与其说是修饰letters，更像是修饰之前的整个句子的结果状语...

whitewoman

云游 发表于 2013-6-27 16:12
个人觉得这样应该就没有问题了，对于modifier而言，结构上需要尽可能的靠近其modify的对象~不然会出现像A ...

唔，我也知道这个修饰要尽量靠近被修饰成分。但是实际做题的时候还真难考虑到这么多，首先判断的肯定是正确性问题。E选项改变了谓语的动词，移走了重心，赶脚也不是特靠谱

云游

whitewoman 发表于 2013-6-27 17:25
唔，我也知道这个修饰要尽量靠近被修饰成分。但是实际做题的时候还真难考虑到这么多，首先判断的肯定是正 ...

嗯，其实我觉得，对于我们non-native speaker来说，真得很难做到像baby姐或者很多版主说得那种通过语义选出正确答案~做题要有步骤，通过明显错误排除下来剩下两三个选项的时候，要通过细微的语义语法来排除，细微的语义语法错误排除到最后还有不确定的，就要看什么wordy和concise了。
而且我觉得一开始做题的时候正确率要比效率重要，正确率保证了，语法点都贯通了，再考虑提速练pace。

enkyklios

我的理解是这样的，一般来讲我们说分词在句尾是表伴随或者结果。
在这里我们先看伴随，Emily Dickinson's letters to Susan Huntington Dickinson were written ，我们把分词还原成从句，when letters outnumber ……。这个句子并不合常理，
作为结果 写给……的信,在……期间，被完成，这超过了……。还是不合理。
我有一个贴子和这个分词作状语有关，如果你感兴趣可以看一下。
http://forum.chasedream.com/foru ... &fromuid=809886