[文法] being

看板Eng-Class作者 (不準噓我，否則生氣)時間9年前 (2016/10/01 21:06), 9年前編輯推噓2(2推 0噓 71→)
留言73則, 4人參與, 最新討論串2/2 (看更多)
多益版沒有人會 所以來這裡找答案 剛剛看影集 有一句話: Everything I said about you being a traitor and stuff，I was wrong,I am sorry. 想問一下 為什麼是用being呢？ 是有文法消除了什麼？ 還是因為什麼原因呢？ -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 42.73.87.75 ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Eng-Class/M.1475327200.A.E59.html ※ 編輯: wadeisshit (114.136.250.130), 10/01/2016 21:17:25
→
10/01 21:51, , 1F
Ving前方要放上主詞時 傳統文法是要求放所有格 your
10/01 21:51, 1F
→
10/01 21:51, , 2F
但實際上口語幾乎都用受格 you
10/01 21:51, 2F
→
10/01 21:56, , 3F
例如 https://goo.gl/ZOtOaX 就是在教學生要用所有格
10/01 21:56, 3F
→
10/01 21:57, , 4F
因為大家生活上其實都用受格
10/01 21:57, 4F
推
10/01 22:50, , 6F
同意樓上，口語常將動名詞前的所有格以受格代替
10/01 22:50, 6F
→
10/01 22:54, , 7F
可看成I said everything about your being traitor..
10/01 22:54, 7F
→
10/01 23:01, , 8F
with-O-OC結構 的推廣
10/01 23:01, 8F
→
10/02 07:27, , 9F
個人認為being不能解釋成分詞或OC 因為文意不合
10/02 07:27, 9F
→
10/02 07:28, , 10F
文意是"你是叛徒(這件事)" 而非"身為叛徒的你"
10/02 07:28, 10F
→
10/02 07:31, , 11F
而且像Why does me being fat offend so many people?
10/02 07:31, 11F
→
10/02 07:32, , 12F
這句就無法以分詞或補語解釋
10/02 07:32, 12F
→
10/02 07:39, , 13F
分詞: Why do I, being fat, offend so many people?
10/02 07:39, 13F
→
10/03 11:22, , 14F
我覺得樓上你搞混分詞和補語的概念了
10/03 11:22, 14F
→
10/03 11:24, , 15F
O+OC 不代表是關代結構:antecedant+who is SC
10/03 11:24, 15F
→
10/03 11:25, , 16F
我對它的看法是 S-is-SC 在從屬式下的結構調整
10/03 11:25, 16F
→
10/03 11:27, , 17F
Why does (me[S] being fat[C]) offend so many people
10/03 11:27, 17F
→
10/03 11:28, , 18F
原句:Why does＂THAT I AM FAT＂ offend so many people
10/03 11:28, 18F
→
10/03 13:32, , 19F
"分詞"是回應d大的連結 不是回應你
10/03 13:32, 19F
→
10/03 13:35, , 20F
假設是補語 那應該是主格I 無法解釋為何變受格me
10/03 13:35, 20F
→
10/03 13:36, , 21F
而且假設是補語 那being fat中的being應該可省
10/03 13:36, 21F
→
10/03 13:38, , 22F
例如Why does me being fatter than you upset you?
10/03 13:38, 22F
→
10/03 13:39, , 23F
> Why does me fatter than you upset you?
10/03 13:39, 23F
→
10/03 13:41, , 24F
但實際上不行 所以這個being是動名詞
10/03 13:41, 24F
→
10/03 13:45, , 25F
當然 為何以受格代替所有格的確可能是受到O+OC影響
10/03 13:45, 25F
→
10/03 13:46, , 26F
例如 I saw him lying there. >
10/03 13:46, 26F
→
10/03 13:48, , 27F
Him lying there is what I saw. 很直觀 故取代標準的
10/03 13:48, 27F
→
10/03 13:48, , 28F
His lying there is what I saw.
10/03 13:48, 28F
→
10/03 13:49, , 29F
但不代表結構真的是O+OC 因為 Ving 不可省略
10/03 13:49, 29F
推
10/04 02:47, , 30F
就類似變格的概念而已 怎麼會無法解釋? 這現象在歐語更
10/04 02:47, 30F
→
10/04 02:47, , 31F
更普遍..
10/04 02:47, 31F
→
10/04 02:47, , 32F
"假設是補語,那being fat中的being應該可省"..哪一本文法
10/04 02:47, 32F
→
10/04 02:51, , 33F
書這麼寫? 我認為在語法手段上 你過於窄化分詞和補語的概
10/04 02:51, 33F
→
10/04 02:52, , 34F
念了 有興趣的話 關鍵字:nominative/genitive/accusative
10/04 02:52, 34F
→
10/04 07:11, , 35F
噗 有沒有可能是你過度擴張補語的概念 而非我窄化它?
10/04 07:11, 35F
→
10/04 07:34, , 36F
With me (being) fatter than you, do you think I
10/04 07:34, 36F
→
10/04 07:35, , 37F
stand a chance of winning this game?
10/04 07:35, 37F
→
10/04 09:05, , 38F
你果然對於補語的認識非但很粗糙,還很混亂,完全沒講到重
10/04 09:05, 38F
→
10/04 09:05, , 39F
點.
10/04 09:05, 39F
→
10/04 09:06, , 40F
<假設是補語 那應該是主格I 無法解釋為何變受格me>這一句
10/04 09:06, 40F
→
10/04 09:07, , 41F
顯示你不知道[補語跟前面是主格或受格(格變化)有無關係],
10/04 09:07, 41F
→
10/04 09:07, , 42F
【主格變受格,跟後面的補語是否連動】,看起來你並不清楚.
10/04 09:07, 42F
→
10/04 09:08, , 43F
答:主格變受格,的解釋權或責任不在補語身上,別鬧了
10/04 09:08, 43F
→
10/04 09:09, , 44F
又或者你誤以為me是一種補語? 那就很離譜了
10/04 09:09, 44F
→
10/04 09:10, , 45F
<而且假設是補語 那being fat中的being應該可省>..OK!那
10/04 09:10, 45F
→
10/04 09:11, , 46F
請問能不能省略是由何決定? 看作者心情嗎? 以及<假設是補
10/04 09:11, 46F
→
10/04 09:11, , 47F
語 那being fat中的being應該可省>這規則出自哪本文法書?
10/04 09:11, 47F
→
10/04 09:13, , 48F
結果你說being是動名詞,ok這是你的說法,...但你知道動名
10/04 09:13, 48F
→
10/04 09:14, , 49F
詞也可以是補語嗎?
10/04 09:14, 49F
→
10/04 09:15, , 50F
<假設是補語..being應可省..但實際上不..,所以being是動
10/04 09:15, 50F
→
10/04 09:16, , 51F
名詞,(而不是補語)>...順著你的推理脈絡,最後會推得being
10/04 09:16, 51F
→
10/04 09:16, , 52F
是動名詞,而不是補語,對吧? ...把詞類跟格位混為一談,這
10/04 09:16, 52F
→
10/04 09:16, , 53F
是很嚴重的錯誤.
10/04 09:16, 53F
→
10/04 09:17, , 54F
不是我過度擴張補語概念,動名詞也可以是補語,這是常識...
10/04 09:17, 54F
→
10/04 09:18, , 55F
至於<Him lying there is what I saw..不代表結構真的是O
10/04 09:18, 55F
→
10/04 09:19, , 56F
+OC,因為 Ving 不可省略>..那麼你如何解釋這裡的Him lyin
10/04 09:19, 56F
→
10/04 09:19, , 57F
-g there? 我猜你把它當動名詞解,那麼him怎麼解?
10/04 09:19, 57F
→
10/04 09:41, , 58F
幹嘛猜?? 我一直認為這裡lying是動名詞不是分詞阿
10/04 09:41, 58F
→
10/04 09:42, , 59F
為何用him取代his前面早說過了
10/04 09:42, 59F
→
10/04 09:45, , 60F
就是native speaker知道I saw him lying there.是對的
10/04 09:45, 60F
→
10/04 09:46, , 61F
當他想說 X is what I saw. 或 What I saw is X.時
10/04 09:46, 61F
→
10/04 09:46, , 62F
很自然就會把 him lying there 填入 X 裡面
10/04 09:46, 62F
→
10/04 09:48, , 63F
但其實應該放上的是 "his" lying there
10/04 09:48, 63F
→
10/04 09:52, , 64F
也就是說骨子裡仍是動名詞 只是外表模仿 O+OC
10/04 09:52, 64F
→
10/04 09:55, , 65F
為何說骨子裡仍是動名詞 就是因為此處動詞若換上be時
10/04 09:55, 65F
→
10/04 09:57, , 66F
是否能省略就會透露出 being 其實非形容詞(現在分詞)
10/04 09:57, 66F
→
10/04 09:57, , 67F
而是動名詞
10/04 09:57, 67F
→
10/04 10:20, , 68F
模仿XD 這解釋優秀 Me being happy 一定也是因為被him看
10/04 10:20, 68F
→
10/04 10:20, , 69F
見了(羞)
10/04 10:20, 69F
→
10/04 10:46, , 70F
請解釋 Why does me fatter than you upset you? 為何
10/04 10:46, 70F
→
10/04 10:47, , 71F
錯誤 但 Why does me being fatter than you upset you
10/04 10:47, 71F
→
10/04 10:47, , 72F
? 卻是對的句子 fatter than you 或 being fatter than
10/04 10:47, 72F
→
10/04 10:47, , 73F
you 都可以當作補語阿
10/04 10:47, 73F
‣ 更多 wadeisshit 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1NxxJWvP (Eng-Class)
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 2 之 2 篇)：
排序： 最新先 | 最舊先 | 留言數
文法
2
73
[文法] being being
wadeisshit
9年前, 10/01
文法
1
11
[文法] being being
NerdHerd
14年前, 07/12
在新視窗開啟完整討論串 (共2篇)
‣ 更多 wadeisshit 的文章
文章代碼(AID): #1NxxJWvP (Eng-Class)