Re: [文法] 有人看過這一條文法規則嗎?
我不知道有沒有中文書提到這規則。
但我對這規則很有興趣，因為十分罕見，
當然要不要相信這規則的存在是個人的選擇:)
我去翻了一下Quirk et al.那本
<<A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language>>，
在第17章28節(17.28)提道、茲節錄如下：
│will write │
│will be writing │
The person who│writes │reports is my colleague. [1]
│is writing │
│wrote │
│was writing │
The person writing reports is my colleague. [1a]
The nonfinite clause writing reports in [1a] may be interpreted, according to
the context, as equivalent to one of the more explicit versions in [1]. ...
.
.
.
It must be emphasized that -ing forms in postmodifying clauses should not
be seen as abbreviated progressive forms in relative clauses. Stative verbs,
for instance, which cannot have the progresssive in the finite verb phrase,
can appear in participial form(...):
This is a liquid with a tase resembling that of soapy water.
['which resembles'; not:'*which is resembling'] [2]
It was a mixture consisting of oil and vinegar.
['that consited of'; not:'*that was consisting of'] [3]
.
.
.
按照該網站的規則，似乎[1]裡面第3句就不該存在了，
更遑論其他未來式、過去式，似乎是都不符合規則。
但Quirk et al.書裡顯然認為[1a]裡的"writing reports"可以是[1]裡的任一句，
至於究竟是[1]裡眾多時態中的哪一個，就要看上下文囉。
(希望我沒誤解該書的意思，該書有些用語實在太專業啦，
我要查半天，還得再三確認，如果我還是有誤解因而誤述的地方，
請大家不吝指正^^)
17.28下面還有一些相關討論，有興趣的也可以去翻翻哦，就不再贅述了~
--
今夜のご注文はどっち？
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 61.227.167.148
※ 編輯: Widder8 來自: 61.227.167.148 (07/10 04:21)
→
07/10 04:47, , 1F
07/10 04:47, 1F
→
07/10 04:49, , 2F
07/10 04:49, 2F
→
07/10 04:50, , 3F
07/10 04:50, 3F
→
07/10 04:50, , 4F
07/10 04:50, 4F
推
07/10 20:39, , 5F
07/10 20:39, 5F
→
07/10 20:40, , 6F
07/10 20:40, 6F
討論串 (同標題文章)