[問題] OG 1

[gogotu]

TheWallerstein study indicates that even after a decade young men and women still experience some of the effects of a divorce occurring when they were children.
這樣是可以的

那麼與正確解答
The Wallerstein study indicates that even after a decade young neb abd women still experience some of the effects of a divorce that occured when they were children.
有怎樣的不同????

有個很大的不同：
由於divorce是發生在過去，用occurring不能說清楚這個divorce發生的時間，所以，本題的Og才會說，occurring......是錯的，一定要用dicorce that occured.....

[維尼]

我的看法是

a divorce that occur......是可以改分詞的

A, B最主要的問題是----> when 子句經過省略後，divorce變成 a child/ children的主詞，造成illogical

如果改成---> a divorce occuring when they are children. 文法上我覺得沒問題！只是會有點意思上的怪異，因為occuring表示一直持續發生。

open to discuss.

美加莫老大有教過一項規則:
形容詞子句動作發生的時間比主要子句早
不可改分詞片語
至於原因哩 不是他沒說 就是我睡著了
可是我個人猜想的原因是
在主要子句是現在式的狀況下
形容詞子句只要是主動語態 不管是現在式或過去式
改成分詞片語都會變成現在分詞
時態就變得無法分辨了
所以就產生這項規則避免 ambiguity

[游客]

To gogotu

Agree your explanation.

To 維尼
This principle seems to be reasonable．
But I am afraid of using it when I do not understand this principle.

[brokenenglish]

我想請問這裡如果用 that occured when children 是否有省略不當的問題,
'they are' 是不是一定不可省?
因為 children 是複數, divorce 是單數,
應該不會被認為是離婚小時候....?



謝謝回答.

[afra_hung]

應該不行吧...
印象中...子句中的主詞跟動詞要要主句一樣時才能省略...
所以如果省略...那就表示子句的主詞跟動詞跟主句中一樣...
也就是...會變成...that occured when (a divorce was) children

[fender]

已經第三次看OG了

這次注意到一個點OG寫到
Choice E includes an incorrect verb tense (has occurred) and wrongly replaces when with as.

原來when和as不能互換
有人有心得嗎

在我的認知裡兩個都可以解釋為"當"不是嗎

[dianechiu]

我比較了10th和11th的OG答案說明 ,其中對11th的有部分的答案說明看得不是很懂
1.選項(A)
11th:
The original sentence has two problems．(1) The phrasing implies that the young men and women had divorced in childhood．(2)The word child does not agree with the antecedent men and women．

10th:
Choice A incorrectly introduces the when... phrase with occurring, thus illogically making divorce the grammatical referent of when a child

兩版的解釋看起來不太一樣,能理解10th when...片語錯誤修飾到divorce,但看不太懂11th是怎麼推導出來的??

2.選項(B)
11th:
This choice does not correct logic or agreement errors

但是(B)不是已經將a child改成children了嗎?為何還會有agreement的問題呢?
10th:
B replaces child with children but otherwise fails to correct A's errors of structure and logic

被搞糊塗了,請大家幫我想一下這兩點好嗎? 謝謝

[dibert8]

OG10,11 對 (A) 的解釋應該都是說 when a child 修飾到 divorce, 所以不合理: 1. divorce 的人不對, 2. divorce 發生在 (when) 兒時.

OG11 對 (B) 提出的 agreement 大概指的是邏輯造成的不一致吧!雖然數量對了,可是人和時間仍然不一致 (i.e. 'children vs adults' to divorce, divorce at 'childhood vs adulthood')

[蘋果汁]

1. The Wallerstein study indicates that even after a decade young men and women still experience some of the effects of a divorce occurring when a child.

(B) occurring when children (x)
when+n. 例子：men and women, when children, … 副詞子句省略。
while occurring ; when scolded.(while+ Ving ; when+Ved)
(B)副詞子句when a children 與主要子句的主詞young men and women相差太遠，會造成修飾上的不清楚。when children = when they are children

(D) that occurred when they were children (O)

(E) that has occurred as each was a child (x)
as前後的時態要一致，在此現在完成式及過去式不一致，不選
each was a child 不簡潔，不選。