Re: [文法] 空英一句

看板Eng-Class作者LeonYo (僕は美味しいです)時間15年前 (2010/11/26 00:08)推噓1(1推 0噓 5→)

留言6則, 2人參與討論串3/3 (看更多)

※ 引述《xiaoa (不事生產)》之銘言： : 抱歉,現在換我不懂了 : 主格、受格應該是指引出子句的 [the things] 在子句之原句 : 即 we believe (that) [the things] are holding .... : 但 [the things are holding ....] 實際上應該是一整個子句先不要把we believe當作插入語在 we believe [(that) the things are holding our families together]中 [the things are ...]的確如xi所說是一整個子句但更精確地說，是由「that」引導的名詞子句在這裡，that不是關係代名詞， that所引導的名詞子句，作為主詞時，that不可以省略作為受詞時，that通常會省略故believe的受詞是[the things are holding our families together]這個名詞子句而不是[the things]這個名詞 : 如果把we believe當插入語, 就有主格關代被省略的問題 : Sometimes the things that are holding .... really aren't : ^^^^ we believe 拿走後應該存在的關代(that) 的確，這是我原來感到疑惑的地方，為什麼會沒有關代??造成兩個動詞的矛盾 : 而且這句子真要把 we believe 拿掉, : [the things are holding ....] : 意思就變調了也許吧..只是本句我理解的一直是同一個意思..所以不太能體會變調的感覺唯一的疑惑是文法的結構而已 : 我原本的看法是[the things]當先行詞時, 其下子句的內的[the things]必須去掉 : the things that [we believe that (the things are ....)] aren't 這裡我就對xi的文法結構感到不解了.. the things that we believe.(我們所相信的事情) ^^^^關係代名詞，先行詞為the things，同時作為believe的受詞 we believe ((that) the things are ...) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^名詞子句，believe的受詞但是合併起來變成.. the things that [we believe ((that) the things are...)] ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 到底是誰要當受詞??? : 在 [we believe ......] 這層子句, the things 是受格(的部分)*1 : 所以外層(Sometimes the things)的that可省略 : 我本來想說, the things 同時也是內層的子句的一部分, 是不是 : 該把內層(believe 後面)的 that補償回來?*2(至少子句不會跑出一個沒頭兒的動詞) : 但似乎依照慣例, believe 後面的 that好像是隨高興愛省略就省略因為不想把原來的段落分開，所以用顏色標註討論 *1, xi在前面已經指出[the things are holding...]是一個完整的子句沒錯，我同意，而且說它是作為believe受詞的名詞子句但是在這裡xi似乎又單獨認為the things是believe的受詞，而非整個子句是受詞這與我的文法概念相衝突如果一開始就認為只有the things是believe的受詞，那[the things are holding...] 就不該存在，尤其是子句中的「are」更是眼中釘既然the things作為受詞，後面頂多是受詞補語，怎麼會有動詞出現呢? *2,這裡我不大懂，把believe後面的that補償回來是何意? 如前所述，這裡是that引導名詞子句作為believe的受詞，而且的確如xi所說，通常愛省略就省略 : 那結果就是 : the things (that) we believe (that) (the things) are .... aren't : ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ : 可略慣略被打壓 : 其實我個人還蠻滿意這樣省略後剩下的句子的 XD 基本上這個句子的結構還是讓我感到奇怪.. ===== 如果從dun給的連結中例句對應， They pointed out the damage which they supposed had been done by last night's storm. [2] 原句應該是 They pointed out the damage (they supposed that [the damage] had been done by last night's storm.) 句中that同樣是引導名詞子句作為supposed的受詞，可省略 the damage是先行詞，於是用關係代名詞作形容詞子句後，變成 They pointed out the damage which (they supposed that ____ had been done by last nights's storm.) the damage被搬到前面變which，所以原來的地方空下來連結中是說，怕that會被誤會成had been的主詞，所以就省略了(但它本來就能省略@@") 故變成 They pointed out the damage which they supposed had been done by .... 但這句和系爭句型The things we believe還是不大一樣 (「系爭」這用語不知大家可否接受) 如果改成The things which we blieve are holding ...就好多了我想我一直對於we believe the things are holding中的 the things作為we believe的受詞耿耿於懷，所以一直不能接受前面的which(或that)可省略的說法或說其實是我誤解了 we believe the things are holding our families together中 believe的受詞的確是「the things」而非「整個子句」? ===== The things (we believe (that) [the things] are holding ... ) aren't. The things (we believe (that) [which] are holding ... ) aren't. The things [which] (we believe (that) are holding ... ) aren't. The things (we believe are holding ... ) aren't. 以上四句作為我對系爭句型的最終理解，由四句的演繹過程明顯可見「which」仍然是作為「主格關代」而被省略感謝各位提供想法的版友~ -- 我好像廢話太多了.. -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 111.249.129.142

推

hubertt

11/26 06:39, , 1^F

11/26 06:39, 1^F

→

hubertt

11/26 06:40, , 2^F

11/26 06:40, 2^F

→

hubertt

11/26 06:43, , 3^F

11/26 06:43, 3^F