查看: 804|回复: 5
打印 上一主题 下一主题

[语言求助] 请问这样的句子能否改为 非限定性定语从句

[复制链接]
  • TA的每日心情

    2018-11-22 10:44
  • 签到天数: 10 天

    [LV.3]偶尔看看II

    6

    主题

    30

    回帖

    663

    积分

    禁止发言

    积分
    663
    跳转到指定楼层
    1
    发表于 2018-11-22 16:37:40 | 只看该作者 |只看大图 回帖奖励 |倒序浏览 |阅读模式
    本帖最后由 superhero123 于 2018-11-22 16:40 编辑

    stingray

    牛津高阶
    a large wide flat sea fish that has a long tail with a sharp sting in it that can cause serious wounds 刺魟(大型扁宽海鱼,尾部有尖刺)
    朗文
    A stingray is a type of large flat fish with a long tail which it can use as a weapon. 魟鱼;刺魟

    对于tail,和sting两个词典都使用了限定性定语从句,但我感觉如果改成非限定定语从句,似乎更准确啊,请问可以这样改写么?
    a large wide flat sea fish that has a long tail with a sharp sting in it, which can cause serious wounds
    A stingray is a type of large flat fish with a long tail, which it can use as a weapon.

    stingray.png (82.48 KB, 下载次数: 0)

    stingray.png
  • TA的每日心情
    开心
    2019-12-18 19:08
  • 签到天数: 5 天

    [LV.2]偶尔看看I

    26

    主题

    284

    回帖

    4364

    积分

    贡士

    Rank: 6Rank: 6

    积分
    4364
    2
    发表于 2018-11-23 23:32:14 | 只看该作者
    本帖最后由 鸭呼嘿 于 2018-12-3 16:42 编辑

        1) about definition

        Facts are even if a plant or animal that you don't know is painstakingly, in a detailed way, described by a dictionary, you cannot usually know what it is like, except for some distinctive ones. And what's more, it's often the case that after reading the detailed definition, you cannot even identify it with the thing that you actually know well. The reason for this is that there are so namy things and every one has a vast set of attributes so that the dictionary cannot easily reveal them all, withought pictures or videos.

        2) about restrictive and non-restrictive attributive clauses

        I'd once taken part in a discussion over this subject years ago, and I hold the same opinion as then, still. That is, sometimes or quite oftn, whether an attributive clause is restrictive or non-attributive does not rest with the grammar, or the structure, but with what you mean it to be, although there are really occations when only one of them can be possible; and only the latter case is where teachers and grammars usually put emphasis.

        ----That is the elderly lecturer I told you the other day who enjoys talking about life in a humorous way.

        Here the attributive clause is unlikely to be non-attributive, because you use it to identify which lecturer you're talking about.

        ---- That is the elderly lecture, who is also a good gulf player.

        Here the attributive clause is more likely to be non-attributive, because the speaker knows that you know which lecturer you are talking about. The speaker gives the non-attributive clause to give more information about the lecturer, not to identify them.

        But then again, if you've mentioned two or more 'elderly lecturers', then the clause is more logical to be restrictive, because you're use it to distinguish one of them from the others.

        So we now may conclude, as I mentioned above, that whether a clause is restrictive or not hinges on your intention, and you decide which to choose according to the specific context.

        Now another question arises: how should I indicate my intention that I mean a clause to be attributive or the opposite? The answer is, in oral language, you use a pause or gap between the antecedent and the attrivutive clause, and in writing, you use punctuation, usually a comma.

        3) coming back to your answer:

        From the discussion above, I think you'd have already had a concept in mind how I'll answer your question:

        if you think 'a large wide flat sea fish that has a long tail with a sharp sting in it' or ' a type of large flat fish with a long tail' is already enough to define 'stingray', you intend the attrubutive clause 'that can cause serious wounds' or 'which it can use as a weapon' to give some complementary information about the sting; contrarily, if you think the attribute of the sting ( may be used as a weapon to wound its predators or preys) is characteristic for stingray, you use the attributive clauses as restrictive. I think the editors of the dictionaries had thought the latter way, so they decided them as restrictive.
         

    评分

    1

    查看全部评分

    该用户从未签到

    0

    主题

    5

    回帖

    7

    积分

    白身

    Rank: 1

    积分
    7
    3
    发表于 2018-11-26 09:28:17 | 只看该作者
    Both are correct in my opinion. I don't see a good way to remove the ambiguity in the sentences entirely though.
  • TA的每日心情
    奋斗
    2018-11-29 10:36
  • 签到天数: 7 天

    [LV.3]偶尔看看II

    1

    主题

    11

    回帖

    198

    积分

    禁止发言

    积分
    198
    4
    发表于 2018-11-26 16:11:41 | 只看该作者
    本帖最后由 喝杯好9 于 2018-11-26 16:15 编辑
    鸭呼嘿 发表于 2018-11-23 23:32
    1) about definition

        Facts are even if a plant or animal that you don't know is painstakingl ...

    这篇整体写的很蹩脚啊,完全看不懂。

    点评

    看不懂的地方可以提出讨论。或者是原文有问题,或者是理解能力有问题,都可以通过讨论解决或者有所助益。  发表于 2018-12-9 09:18

    该用户从未签到

    2

    主题

    160

    回帖

    2971

    积分

    解元

    Rank: 5Rank: 5

    积分
    2971

    灌水大神章

    5
    发表于 2018-12-15 09:50:15 | 只看该作者
    赞同楼主。读得很认真!
    起初觉得大可不必,仔细一想,这里其实就应该用非定从而不是定从。楼主虽然提到 “更准确”, 却没有指出何以“更准确”, 我啰嗦一下。

    牛津: 它对 sting 使用定从。How many stings does a stingray's tail have? 如果鱼尾有多个刺,其中某个能致命,那就应该用定从。反之,则是补充说鱼尾有刺,刺能致命,此时该用非定从。

    朗文: 它的 tail 使用定从。从视觉上,我们都知道 a stingray has only one tail. 那还有什么理由使用定从呢? 只能是补充说明它的尾部可用作武器。

    看个例子: Jane's husband who's a top executive in a giant tech company is tall and handsome.
    这句话给人的印象是,Jane 的那个在科技巨头公司做高官的丈夫高大又英俊。

    可是,现代社会,一个女人一般只能有一个丈夫 (当然,一个男人也只能有一个妻子), 所以,以上那句话应该改为:
    Jane's husband, who's a top executive in a giant tech company,is tall and handsome.

    通俗讲,定从用来 "固定", 没有这个固定,前面所指摇摆不定,模糊不清,所以,定从所给出的信息是必需的。非定从用来 "补充",  没有这个补充, 前面所指依然清楚, 确定, 所以, 非定从是不必须的.  但是非定从增加一点信息量.

    题外话, 就这个词典解释而言, 牛津, 朗文各有千秋. 牛津这么短短的一句话竟然用两个定从, 结构颇为复杂. 但它提供的信息量多于朗文. 朗文简化了牛津的结构, 它把牛津的第一个定从简化为介词短语. 但是它说尾部作武器, 颇为模糊.