- UID
- 1026551
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2014-7-15
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
popup 发表于 2014-9-30 22:38 ![]()
千万别这么称呼，我不是神，我就是普通人。
我又去研究了一阵，发现我前面关于插入语的部分和你说错了， ...
我刚刚看了你贴给我的链接，正好出现了我上一个帖子求贴的例子，对于RON的回答里面我有个问题想问，下面是一个人的问题和RON 的回答
In the past several years, astronomers have detected more than 80 massive planets, most of them as large or larger than Jupiter, which circle other stars.
A.most of them as large or larger than Jupiter, which circle
B.most of them as large or larger than Jupiter and circling
C.most of them at least as large as Jupiter, circling
D.mostly at least as large as Jupiter, which circle
E.mostly as large or larger than Jupiter, circling
I understand yr answer. Any how, why this sentence use "most of them" rather than "most of which are at leasta s large as Jupiter, circling "
if you use that version, then you're introducing a certain amount of ambiguity into the attribution of the modifier "...circling...".
namely, because you've introduced a modifier that's a CLAUSE, you have now opened up the possibility that the modifier modifies that clause, rather than the original phrase it's intended to modify.
this would be bad, because, in this second interpretation, "circling..." would actually be taken to modify just the majority of planets that are at least as large as Jupiter, rather than all the planets in question as intended.
in other words, if you introduce that sort of construction, there are now 2 ways to interpret the sentence:
(1) the intended interpretation: the modifier, which is set off by commas, is to be neglected in the interpretation of the sentence, and "circling" is to be taken as if it followed "planets" immediately, without a comma (because that's the way it would be if the modifier were removed - neither of the commas would be there anymore).
(2) the modifier is to be taken as "comma + -ing", a construction that modifies the preceding clause. this is the source of the aforementioned ambiguity.
--
the original version of (c) is better, because it doesn't possess this ambiguity: (2) is no longer possible, because we can't interpret the modifier as "comma + -ing". if we tried, we'd be stuck in a quandary, because the preceding words are a phrase, not a clause.
interpretation (1), however, still stands: it's a modifier that, in essence, directly follows "planets" and therefore modifies that particular noun.
1.RON的意思是说如果改成了most of which are as large as or larger than jupiter, circling other planets.circling 修饰的就有两种情况，临近的句子主语most of which 或者是80 planets，因而存在歧义，这两种情况是不分谁优谁劣的吧？只要是这种情况不管逻辑含义上应该修饰的是谁都会有另外一种理解存在歧义，因而这种句子一般都是歧义句，不知道我理解的对不对。
2. 我还有一点困惑的地方就是， most of which are as large as or larger than 是一个完整的句子吗？这样说的话，凭什么逗号后面可以加一个完整句子而不加连词？例如：i have some books,they are perfect，这样是错的因为逗号后面加了完整句子而没有连词。应该改成i have some books, and they are perfect.或者i have some books ,which are perfect。 如果按照RON所说，which are perfect 也是完整句子的话，怎么说的通？？
我好像把一些概念搞混了，求解啊
3.最后一点，不知道你有没有注意我刚才上个帖子里的一句话“修饰词（包括which,逗号加现在分词形式，过去分词形式）对于前面插入部分的修饰有两种方式” 我想想觉得不对了，因为不是说which和过去分词形式是就近指代么？前面是不完整的句子需要跳跃？ |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2014-9-30 22:38:59
楼主
