ChaseDream
搜索
返回列表 发新帖
楼主: enkyklios
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[SC总结] 大搜魂针终结贴之争议篇----再话【having done 】

[精华] [复制链接]
11#
发表于 2013-6-24 19:54:54 | 只看该作者
1;
Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,
2
Neuroscientists  are now drawing solid conclusions

这个句子2是主句没有问题,但是句子1我认为是有问题的。
但是如果是状语。就是积累了知识以后,神经学家发现……
因为作为状语事实上有一种因果关系,是说科学家们长期的积累现在总于发现在……
但是作为定语必须是和谓语没有关系的一件事,  比如我们不能说这个蓝色的杯子是最蓝的(我们不知道是那个蓝色杯子,没有办法和其它蓝色杯子区分),我们必须说这个蓝色的杯子是最大的。也就是说定语如果和后边要描述的东西是一个事就没有办法区别开来,
上边这句话如果是定语那么科学家们积累知识和他们的发现没有了关系,可能是积累的别的知识,
以上是你用语义分析为什么是做状语。我第一次读的时候也是感觉做状语读起来比较顺。状语是有表示原因的意思。但是后来看了OG在C项的解释开始怀疑,到最后看到baby姐的分析。感觉当做定语来理解也可以。
你可以这样来理解。首先根据你上面的第2句话,神经科学家正在drawing……。然后,我们对神经科学家加个限定修饰的成分,什么科学家呢?就是已经积累了(或是已经完成了积累这个动作)……的神经科学家正在drawing……。那可能还有正在积累brain这方面(或是还有没有完成积累这个动作)的科学家呢,或是已经完成了其他成就并不是这道题中说的about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood的科学家。这道题里讨论的只是完成了积累这个动作的科学家,或者是完成了积累在brain这方面成就的神经科学家,是他们现在在drawing. 我感觉这样理解做定语也可以说得过去。
12#
 楼主| 发表于 2013-6-24 20:05:12 | 只看该作者
zhuangzhilingy 发表于 2013-6-24 19:54
1;
Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain an ...

“做定语说的过去”我同意你的说法,
做定语并非完全荒谬,只是这并非句子要表达的意思。
13#
发表于 2013-6-25 00:31:36 | 只看该作者
汗 我觉得我像是被人拎出来加上重点符号大小写和颜色逐字逐句批斗了呀…… 压力略大

那个 enkykilos我支持你“支持自己的观点”,不过为了客观公正的展现我们两个人不同的观点。能否请你把针对我的话的“加工”和“挑选”以及“逐句点评”的部分去掉,这个过程中有可能带入你个人的理解,影响大家判断的客观性。

我把我当时的总结附上当时的格式全部贴在下面,你只要复制黏贴进“编辑区”,就能原封不动放进帖子里。
然后你集中阐述自己的观点,再把我的观点集中放在下面,让看的人自行判断如何?

这样才是比较科学客观的阐述观点的方式,不容易误导读者。(希望你是真心认为自己有道理,而不是借着我和baby姐的名头宣传你的帖子,那么你会听取我的建议的。去掉针对个人的点评等辅助信息,而单纯阐述观点。我觉得你黄色加粗部分以下都可以去掉。)


神猴的总结如下:

Part I

关于 Comma + -ING,要注意到可能有两种情况 1) noun modifier, 2) adverbial modifier.

我们做SC的时候总是会涉及很多各式各样的结构和变化,不太建议总结太过复杂的,针对每一个不同结构和位置的语法总结,这么多的rules你放到考场上很难一起想到来并运用上去。
很简单,结合 gramma + meaning (句子结构+句意)两者来解题。

所以Comma + -ING是否noun modifier,or adverbial modifier,根据语义来判断就好了。---RULE 1#

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

以下是我看了大家讨论后,给自己“拼凑”的一份总结,觉得基本讲清楚了所有的 comma + -ING。

(Stacey那段开头,解释了如何理解Comma + -ING有时既可以理解为 noun modifier,又能理解为 adverbial modifier) --- zhuang引用的 “aeoluseros 斑斑”的例子就属于这个类型,不用刻意去区别到底是noun modifier or adverbial modifier, they are the same in essence/meaning.

由于noun modifier比较基本,所以instructor的总结都比较侧重adverbial modifier的理解。但是具体是哪种,看句子的时候先参照 RULE 1#


Stacey:
As a very general rule, think of a "comma -ing" as modifying the clause that it's touching (but the "comma -ing" could come at the beginning, middle, or end). When it comes at the beginning, we often think of it as a noun modifier, but it's still the same thing.
Slipping on the ice, I fell and broke my ankle. (Ouch!)
--> I'm not just trying to say that *I* slipped on the ice. I'm trying to say that, as a result of slipping on the ice, *I fell.*
I slipped on the ice, breaking my ankle.
--> again, it's not just that I broke my ankle - it's that I broke it because I slipped.
Note that I wouldn't say:
I fell and broke my ankle, slipping on the ice.
Why not?
--> In general, there's a sequence to these constructions. The thing that's written first happens first, and the second thing happens after, as a result of, as a consequence of the first thing.


Ron:
"leading to" is a classic example of a COMMA + -ING modifier.
these modifiers refer to the subject and action of the preceding clause, and imply a very specific relationship between the modifier and the action in that clause: the -ING action must be either
(1)simultaneous with AND subordinate to, or
(2)a direct and inevitable consequence of,
the action in the main clause.

for instance:
my brother took extra courses every semester throughout his college career, graduating in only three years.
-->correct.

my brother ate frozen food every day throughout his college career, graduating in only three years.
-->incorrect. There are no grammatical issues with this sentence, but it's absurd in terms of meaning: there is no causal or consequential relationship between eating frozen food and graduating early.

that's a quick rundown on how to use COMMA + -ING.


Exception: Comma + -ING in complex expression (2+ svo) – meaning issue
also, bear in mind that there is some flexibility here -- if a comma + -ING modifier follows a complex expression that hasmore than one subject+verb pair, then you may have to use a certain amount of commonsense to distinguish what is modified.
the modifier still must modify the same rules, but could refer to either of the subject/verb combinations.

e.g1.
i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients andheat.
here, the comma -ing modifier modifies only the second subject+verb pair.  shown in color:
i carried a bag containing six incubators that enclosed baby chicks, supporting them with nutrients and heat.

VS.
e.g2
i dropped a bag containingsix incubators that enclosed baby chicks, breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives.
here, the comma -ing modifier modifies the entire preceding clause.  shown in color:
i dropped a bag (containingsix incubators that enclosed baby chicks), breaking two of them and endangering the chicks' lives.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

如果看到这里还嫌不够晕ORZ。。。 再推荐这个拓展一下 ==+

关于V-ing SVOSVO V-ing位置能否互换:(not a rule
http://forum.chasedream.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=751727&page=3#pid16810231


…………………
……………………………………

: ) enkyklios太客气了,我看到你的总结了 很赞呀~~

为你和zhuang同学的探索精神鼓掌~!

ps. 大家顺便看看,OG是否还有超出Ron总结的部分情况存在~ Ron以前的确没提到noun modifier的情况,不过我猜想native speaker可能只是没太把noun modifier的情况放在心上吧。maybe~



Part II

我觉得这句话里面noun modifier和adverbial modifier的差别不大

因为按照读句子的顺序理解下来,doing 按照touch rule的确就会倾向于修饰前面的clause or noun。OG的解释里能够看出它这方面的偏好。(这点的原理有些类似于Stacey和Ron所举得例子中,there's a sequence to these constructions的原因。)

感觉你和zhuang的point都有各自的道理。这里我觉得就采用meaning的方式去解题吧。(其实不管noun modifier or adverbial modifier,都是Subject在doing嘛~)结合grammar和meaning,就不需要这些条条框框了~

………………………
………………………………

中国人写的语法书? 不管是老美写的,还是中国人写的,这种简单的一刀切式的总结,抛下了语义不去考虑,都是有问题的。(时常可以有反例)

baby举得例子(没有comma的情况下,分词无法做状语)
The man having come to school early this morning came to school again just now.   --- apparently "having come" functions as an adjective

这样的例子英语中比比皆是。

21.        Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.

至于这句,很难说是noun modifier还是adverbial modifier,因为Comma + -ING两种情况都有,剩下的需要用meaning去判定。(与having done无关,只要句意需要,noun modifier一样可以是having done)

在这句的情况下,根据meaning,不管noun modifier 还是 adverbial modifier都行的通。但是通常很多人(native speakers)倾向于认为这是一种noun modifier。不过他们本质上都是同一种东西。

发现了么~ 实际上,我将Stacey的总结用中文又说了一遍。她所概括虽然是Ving放句首作noun modifier,但实际和这里的情况是一致的。
When it comes at the beginning (or between Subject and Main Verb), we often think of it as a noun modifier, but it's still the same thing.

As a very general rule, think of a "comma -ing" as modifying the clause that it's touching (but the "comma -ing" could come at the beginning, middle, or end).


Comma + -ING 可做noun modifier(当然本质与adverbial modifier并没有区别)的情况,还比如:
OG12 SC 30 --- comma + protecting   (1)
OG12 SC 65 --- comma + absorbing
OG12 SC 61 --- Rivaling + comma + Subject  (2)
OG12 SC 67 --- Affording + comma + Subject
OG12 SC 21 --- Subject, having amassed, Main Verb  (3)
OG12 SC 95 --- Subject, acting like, Main Verb
...... (, etc.)

exception:
OG12 SC 29 --- with noun doing, doing, and doing 中间的那个Comma + -ING   (4)
(再次验证了一刀切式的Rules相当不可靠了吧,英语变数太多了)

Comma + -ED 只能作noun modifier的情况:
OG12 SC 28 --- comma + based on   (5)


不知不觉把OG中所有的Comma + -ING 都翻了一遍,这次应该没问题了…… 我基本同意Stacey的看法~

最终我们要记住的不是(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)一共5种结构的变化,而是那句黄色的 General Summary。结合Meaning,就能做所有的comma + -ing了。



Part III

我想我应该解释清楚了 你再看看 刚才回去把其他几种类型的OG句子补充了上去

我的意思是,我同意有adverbial modifier的逻辑关系(虽然未必是你说的因果),我也同意noun modifier修饰主语补充信息的关系,因为语义上他们都行的通。

句子1句子2我认为都没问题,去掉having done,主句一样成立。

另外你现在有些钻牛角尖了,要知道,这里是否noun modifier or adverbial modifier 几乎不造成影响。即便是个different point,也是meaningless point。不值得花费过多精力深挖一个根本不可能考到的点。
Digging too much is another common mistake in preparing GMAT.

语法书的问题,如果你相信“权威”,那么请将它当做一个adverbial modifier。这不会影响你在G上面哪怕一丁点的成绩。


…………………………
…………………………………………


The man having finished a whole table of food cannot eat anything more.
---Why is this wrong?

The boat having crossed the bridge is safe now.
---Why is this wrong?

A man having made a mistake won't necessarily make it again.
---Why is this wrong?

This construction ABSOLUTELY makes sense.



Do you get the point?

the only difference between having done and doing is the former EMPHASIZES that one action happened JUST BEFORE another action.

The question having been talked about remains unsolved, as is in our case.
--- having been talked EMPHASIZES that we DID talk the question before, but STILL cannot reach an agreement.

yes, it seems uninstinctive, but it's true, just as more in GMAT are.


14#
发表于 2013-6-25 00:58:29 | 只看该作者
请不要将我的格式做任何修改 也不要把它作为隐藏内容 这样我会觉得你在用我帮你赚取点击率 你可以自己写一段话,然后隐藏之。

谢谢。
15#
发表于 2013-6-25 00:59:38 | 只看该作者
直接复制黏贴进"编辑区"即可 格式是互通的 相信对你不难
16#
 楼主| 发表于 2013-6-25 00:59:49 | 只看该作者
铁板神猴 发表于 2013-6-25 00:31
汗 我觉得我像是被人拎出来加上重点符号大小写和颜色逐字逐句批斗了呀…… 压力略大

那个 enkykilos我支持 ...

我已经按你的要求把字体加粗去掉。在文前加了提示。
但是我觉得这样,因这这个贴子内容太多。我们还是回到开始上来,你把那道题的核心论点提出来。然后我给你放到贴子前边去
17#
 楼主| 发表于 2013-6-25 01:01:26 | 只看该作者
铁板神猴 发表于 2013-6-25 00:59
直接复制黏贴进"编辑区"即可 格式是互通的 相信对你不难

例如;

Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.

我们这次从头来谈论这个问题,我们先看看什么是定语什么是状语。

状语的功能:状语说明地点、时间、原因、目的、结果、条件、方向、程度、方式和伴随状况等。
定语是用来修饰、限定、说明名词或代词的品质与特征的。 非限定性定语起补充说明作用,缺少也不会影响全句的理解

我们看了定语和状语的定义之后发现在定语是和谓语没有关系的一种成分,它是用来描述一个什么样的主语,而状语则不然它和谓词有着各式各样的联系。
那我们再回过头来看看上边这句话

Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.
我们先把这句话按版主认为的定语来分析一下;

1;Neuroscientists have amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood,  (非限定语)
2 ;Neuroscientists  are now drawing solid conclusions (主句)

既然是非限定性定语,我们可以把它放在后面,我们可以说神经学家现在得出大脑……的结论,神经学家积累了大量的知识。
也就是说积累了大量的知识只是为了告诉我们神经学家是一群什么样的人

我们还是对照我的例子;enkyklios用狗熊作头像,enkyklios 是论坛里最爱钻牛角尖的人。
                                        enkyklios ,using …… is 论坛里最爱钻牛角尖的人
我反复这样的对比是为了让大家明白定语是和谓语完全没有关系的一种句子成份。

现在我们再按照状语来分析一下上边的句子。
Neuroscientists, having amassed a wealth of knowledge over the past twenty years about the brain and its development from birth to adulthood, are now drawing solid conclusions about how the human brain grows and how babies acquire language.

这句话在我看来是说在科学家积累了大量的知识以后,他们现在得出结论…… (这里边有一个时间的关系,也还有着微妙的原因成份)
18#
 楼主| 发表于 2013-6-25 01:02:36 | 只看该作者
铁板神猴 发表于 2013-6-25 00:59
直接复制黏贴进"编辑区"即可 格式是互通的 相信对你不难

我还可以把中间那个例子去掉,然后缩小字体使得我的论证更紧密,你也把你对这个句子的看法提出来
19#
发表于 2013-6-25 01:03:09 | 只看该作者
你可以自行讨论你的论点,贴你的题目,然后针对论述你的论据
1、
2、
3、
清晰明了,我不参与编辑

如果希望拿我的观点用作对比,“无修改”地放置到你的论述之后即可。

除此之外,支持各自阐述自己的观点
20#
发表于 2013-6-25 01:04:08 | 只看该作者
如果略嫌太长,请将我的观点“无修改”地置于二楼沙发,作为对比。
您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

Mark一下! 看一下! 顶楼主! 感谢分享! 快速回复:

IESE MBA
近期活动

正在浏览此版块的会员 ()

手机版|ChaseDream|GMT+8, 2024-12-1 01:52
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号

ChaseDream 论坛

© 2003-2023 ChaseDream.com. All Rights Reserved.

返回顶部