[語文] pp1-sc-130(現在分詞的修飾問題)

看板GMAT (GMAT入學考試)作者jclolo (潔西囉囉)時間17年前 (2009/06/15 13:30)推噓3(3推 0噓 11→)

留言14則, 3人參與討論串1/3 (看更多)

130. Industrialization and modern methods of insect control have improved the standard of living around the globe while at the same time they have ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣ introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants, having gone virtually ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣ unregulated since they were developed more than 50 years ago. (A) while at the same time they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants, having (B) while at the same time introducing some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants that have (C) while they have introduced some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants at the same time, and have (D) but introducing some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants at the same time that have (E) but at the same time introduce some 100,000 dangerous chemical pollutants, having 答案是B 我有疑問的是在AE這兩個選項，語法筆記給的解釋是「having gone...分詞結構有作伴隨副詞修飾have introduced的歧義，而不是作 pollutants的定語」我覺得這邊一直都很搞不懂，到底什麼時候會有歧義，什麼時候不會有? 分詞(前面有逗號)放在句尾，到底是優先修飾逗號前面的名詞還是當伴隨副詞?? 在我看到pp1-127題時，我以為我找到答案了語法筆記裡寫「現在分詞結構在句尾可作定語修飾緊臨的名詞，也可作形容詞修飾整個句子，所以在這種情況下需要特別注意，通常優先作定語修飾名詞，如果不符合邏輯，則是作形容詞修飾句子，如果二者都能理解符合邏輯，則說明該分詞結構有修飾歧義。」把這個原則套到130題來看， 1. ,having gone修飾前面的名詞pollutants，很合理呀~ 2. 如果當伴隨副詞，不覺得合理呀~"~ ===>如此一來，我不懂歧義在那裡耶! 另外，如果說修飾前面的名詞在句意上很明顯不合理但當伴隨副詞，修飾前面句子的動詞，或是表示前面動詞的結果，很合理! 這樣子會有歧義嗎?? 這個問題真的很困擾，麻煩大家幫我解答一下，謝謝!!! -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 218.169.54.222