bryant 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 1 0 年前

(有點難喔!)英文的~~頂極達人~~請進吧!

What followed was a tour de force of syndicalism.

接下來演出了一場漂亮的工人革命..

Q...我對於what followed的~文法上~其用有點不解可以為我說明一下嗎?

最好給個例子的

~~~

by trying to understand what goes on in human brains.

承上其what=

1..what=what it goes on in......它將it給省略

2..what=the thing that goes on in.......關係代名詞

3..what=what goes on in......同位格之一

它應該數哪一類啊?

~~~~  

that is precisely what motivated mazziotta to set up the atlas project in

tha first place.

算是倒裝句嗎?what motivated mazziotta....

因為一般常見如...we don't know what God wants from us.

其S&V的位置是這樣...

若為倒裝句的話...

motivated mazziotta又為何要倒裝,

用倒裝是為強調某一事情或使其句子更流暢...

那在此就是要特指~~激發/引起~~~mazziotta一事囉!

或是另有其解呢....

~~~~~~~

these issues need tension ,jeopardy and a sense of what-might-be

to succeed....

承上of what-might-be其詞性屬何種?

一般常見of what it is .....名詞子句...

以上是TIME雜誌的一些內容,如果可以的話請您幫我附個例子..

謝謝....

~~~~~~~~~~

已更新項目:

What followed was a tour de force of syndicalism.

這一句不是名詞子句喔!

是獨立單句的首句...

2 個已更新項目:

thanks for Frankle's answers ...

basically, you indeed remind me some thing and also make a good explanation over what its mean is in grammar.

but there's only one thing i want to know more..

3 個已更新項目:

take Q1 for example..

even when it is in top of article or sentence there's no any word before

especially this sentence

may i also use it in all of the time?

thanks..

1 個解答

評分
  • Tony
    Lv 5
    1 0 年前
    最佳解答

    顯然你對what這個字的用法並不熟悉! 最好回想一下國中(應該是國三吧)提過關於形容詞子句與關係代名詞的文法(雖然一直強調不要依賴文法,但是對它還是要有基本概念才行。)

    你問的這些what全部都是"the thing(s) which/that",也就是所謂的"複合關係代名詞";身兼先行詞與關係代名詞的雙重身分。

    當然,儘管文法書上告訴你,what定義成"the thing(s) which/that"

    ,在閱讀理解一段文章的時候,我們還是必須考慮上下文,而非像在套用式子一樣直接把the thing(s) which/that替換過去;如果你在念英文的時候是用這種方式唸的話,代表你已經被文法書綁死了,必須儘快跳脫出文法書所局限的空間。

    在你的第一個問題裡面:

    What followed was a tour de force of syndicalism.

    其實就是:

    The event [that followed] was a tour de force of syndicalism.

    括號框起來的部分是關係子句,用來修飾前面的先行詞event.

    至於event這個字是怎麼出現的,則是根據你所提供的上下文("a tour de force of syndicalism"很顯然是一個"事件"(event)吧?)

    正因為從句子的後半部,我們就能很直覺得知道這個句子的主詞會是一個event,作者覺得句子所給讀者的訊息已足夠且明確,為了使句型更加簡潔有力(何況這是TIME的文章!),才進一步把主詞(同時也是關係子句的先行詞)和關係代名詞用what合併,變成你看到的那個樣子。

    (應該不會問我followed吧~ 它只是簡單過去式而已-事件是發生在過去嘛)

    要例子的話:

    The typhoon left. What followed was the torrential rain for almost a week.

    颱風走了,緊接而來的便是一週的豪雨。

    第二個問題,老實說我不太了解你打的那三點;但它其實和你第一個問題要問的是一樣的東西:

    by trying to understand what goes on in human brains.

    =by trying to understand the thing that goes on in human brains.

    試圖了解人腦是如何運作。(沒有上下文,我也不確定這樣翻有沒有問題)

    照1的方法來講其實也OK,只是有點囉嗦! What本身就可以代替任何不明確的東西了,根本沒有必要用那個it。

    至於3,請問是和誰當同位語? 前面只有understand這個動詞,總不可能當動詞的同位語吧? 顯然what本身就是受詞,並同時引導做為受詞補語的關係子句。

    第三個問題:

    that is precisely what motivated mazziotta to set up the atlas project in

    tha first place.

    跟倒裝句一點關係都沒有。

    還原給你看:

    that is precisely the event/thing/reason that motivated mazziotta to set up the atlas project in the first place.

    那正巧是激勵Mazziotta率先建立atlas計畫的原因/事件。

    (Again...沒有完整的文章,為避免斷章取義誤導你,有些地方我沒辦法翻!)

    關係子句裡你應該就觀察的出來,S.並不是mozziotta,而是what。mozziotta只是句子中的O.,接在V.之後,跟倒裝沒有關係。

    第四個問題:

    what-might-be,就是原先子句"what might be"變來的;因為作者想要用名詞來寫,但是又沒有合適的字,所以把原來的子句接起來,構成一個名詞;依字面上的意思應該是"可能的因素"。

    雖然有點不公平,告訴你: 這種用法我們非native speakers(或者該更明確的說,非以英文為母語的專業英文學者)盡可能不要用! 我們還沒有那種地位"創造"新的用法;光憑我們非native speakers這點就讓我們沒辦法這樣做了!

    既然這種用法不是我們能隨便用的,當然我也不好舉例! 重點是你句子的意思能了解就好^^。

    以上解說,希望你能了解!

    2007-10-05 05:43:17 補充:

    Of course you're welcome to start an article with the sentence "What ..."! No one ever said that it's an invalid way to do. However, you have to concern about the logic ideas of your sentence when writing.

    2007-10-05 05:43:29 補充:

    Take the sentence you asked for example, because the author used the verb "follow," which means the event came after something happening first, you cannot put this sentence on the very beginning of an article. Logically it's not work.

    2007-10-05 05:43:38 補充:

    If you write another sentence like:

    "What people most concerns about nowadays is the issue of Global Warming."

    It's definitely okay and reasonable to start an article.

    Get it?

    參考資料: myself
還有問題?馬上發問,尋求解答。