Ron:“ved” modifier could refer either to the subject or to the noun before; you'll have to use context to figure it out. 1.Joe turned to face the audience, flushed with fear 【√】modifies "Joe" 2.Joe will fight his next bout against Malik, renowned for his fierce left jab 【√】modifies "Malik" they are hardly tested at all on the real test. 关于此题: there shouldn't be a modifier here. Ing或ed修饰语修饰主语不太好-- it must actually modify, or relate to, the content of the preceding clause. e.g. Joe spoke to the audience, blushing with nervousness --> this sentence makes sense Joe spoke to the audience, standing 5'11" tall --> although this sentence is grammatically correct, it's total nonsense, because Joe's height has nothing to do with his speaking ability. OG12 #26-A:it's not grammatically wrong, but it contains a modifier that's "modifying" something completely unrelated to it. the fact that the images "date from xxxx" and "were fashioned from xxxx" are two completely unrelated facts, so they should be placed in separate constructions (with "and"). it's inappropriate to use a modifier.
Joe turned to face the audience, flushed with fear 【√】modifies "Joe"
我觉得不是这样的,ed和ing修饰不同,如果要修饰Joe,需要touch,应该是:
Joe, flushed with fear ,turned to face the audience.
等稍后拉上猴子yingjie来释惑
|