[問題] OG 1

[evelight]

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.

(A) occurring when a child
(B) occurring when children
(C) that occurred when a child
(D) that occurred when they were children
(E) that has occurred as each was a child

答案是D。

其中OG對C的解釋是：C corrects only the error created by occurring.
另外對D的解釋是：Choice D is best. The phrasing a divorce that occurred when they were children correctly uses the relative clause that occurred to modify a divorce

為什麼在此用分詞不可以呢？

[Behemoth]

用a.b時會有脫節問題

離婚就是離婚
沒有離婚小時的離婚還是離婚老時的離婚
年紀要修飾人才對

[evelight]

用a.b時會有脫節問題

離婚就是離婚
沒有離婚小時的離婚還是離婚老時的離婚
年紀要修飾人才對

那如果改為這樣呢？
occuring when they were children

[best555tw]

(1) 因為前面是young men and women 要用複數children排除ACE
(2) D比B清楚
因為when式副詞子句，它的主要子句主詞不是young men and women
所以they不能省略
它的主要子句是that occurred 所以也不能改成occurring

[evelight]

它的主要子句是that occurred 所以也不能改成occurring

其實...我貼這篇文章只是想問這句...

我似乎有一點點理解了
請大家看看我的想法有沒有問題

我的想法是：
原來應該是 a divorce occurred when men and women were children.
這是一個完整的有主要子句、有附屬子句的句子
但是a divorce又附屬在the effect of a divorce裡面，所以以上那個完整的句子整各要變成形容詞子句去修飾a divorce
所以答案變成a divorce [that occurred when they were children.]
所以不可以把形容詞子句簡化，免得括號內的主要子句沒有動詞

[agk99]

(1) 因為前面是young men and women 要用複數children排除ACE
(2) D比B清楚
因為when式副詞子句，它的主要子句主詞不是young men and women
所以they不能省略
它的主要子句是that occurred 所以也不能改成occurring

that occured不能改occuring，我覺得有點問題耶
但我也沒把握，請大家補充

[Behemoth]

這裡的that occur不能改分詞就是我上面講的脫節問題~]

補充一下我是說ab不能改

D是可以的

[agk99]

這裡的that occur不能改分詞就是我上面講的脫節問題~

後來和B爺電話討論，結論是that occured可以改occuring
至於AB選項是當然不可以改的─ 脫節疑慮

[Calvin]

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.

[micht]

是阿~我怎麼印象中 OG就有解釋到這點
It is awkard to use "occuring" in present progressive tense when describing "divorce". 不可能when they were children時 一直 divorce

[Calvin]

OG並沒有金剛說的解釋

OG裡的解釋是---> Choice A incorrectly introduces the "when......" pharse with occurring, thus illogically making "divorce" the grmmatical referent of when a child.

所以把 grammatical referent 的問題解決了，改分詞我覺得可以！

open to discuss

[Behemoth]

報告

凱爾文兄引述的正式og說a不可以改分詞的原因

a改分詞變成文法上child的先行詞是divorce

而這點,恰恰就是錯的地方

錯在我上面說的脫節這問題

也就是金剛說的~

[Calvin]

沒錯！大家的看法其實都是一致的

希望有解決到evelight的疑問！

[evelight]

沒錯！大家的看法其實都是一致的

希望有解決到evelight的疑問！

感謝各位高手熱情解答~~

[Clara]

剛好複習到這裡
有新問題
煩請解答

根據前面的討論

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????