Wing Man 發問時間: 社會與文化語言 · 7 年前

Grammar - Past Particicple一句

Killed for their fins, sharks are endangered.

這句Past Particicple Phrase對的麼? 可以更正加解釋下嗎?

老師說是錯的, 但網上間吾中會有人用差不多的structure哦

3 個解答

  • 7 年前

    Killed for their fins, sharks are endangered. ~ 單從 grammar 角度看, 句子表面 structure 是無錯

    sharks are endangered ~ main clause

    Killed for their fins ~ past participle phrase, 個 subject 是 sharks


    (1) Sharks are killed for their fins.

    (2) Sharks are endangered.

    Killed for their fins, sharks are endangered. ~ 這個句子是錯, ”endangered” 不是這樣用.

    endanger (transitive verb) = 危及; endangered 是 past tense and past participle.

    Endangered 還可做形容詞, 有特別的解釋, “快要絕種的”, Most dictionaries list this adjective separately.

    Endangered 作為 adjective 是用在 noun 前面, endangered species, endangered animals

    例如. Shark is an endangered species.

    只有少數英漢字典與上面兩位仁兄是用在 noun 後面

    問題 endanger (verb) 不是解 “瀕於滅絕”, 解 “危及”

    endangered 作 past participle 是解 “危及”, 但是你的句子意思是”瀕於滅絕”, 與 endangered species 有關.

    Assume passive voice, “Sharks are endangered.”

    轉回 active voice, “Something endangers the sharks.” ~ Usage 是錯

    Many people ignore English collocations (i.e. acceptable objects of “endanger”)

    endanger someone/some animals 純是 Chinese English. Sharks are endangered 也是.

    endanger (危及) 後面的 object 多數是:~


    例子: Smoking during pregnancy endangers your baby’s life.

    不是 Smoking during pregnancy endangers your baby.

    Another example:

    Any raid or rescue operation would endanger lives of hostages.

    你的老師說句子錯, 可能認為 sharks are killed, 何來 “危及” 或 變成 “endangered species”? It is only my wild guess. It is best in your interest to ask your teacher to elaborate on this issue.

    參考資料: Yahoo Dictionary; Longman English Dictionary
  • Jenkin
    Lv 7
    7 年前

    假如你想問的是killed這past participle的phrase,基本上=

    Being killed for their fins, sharks are endangered.






    Sharks are endangered because they are being killed for their fins.



  • 7 年前

    Mis-related participles

    Care should be taken in using this construction to make sure that the participles are correctly related. The word to which the participle relates should be the same as the subject of the verb. Thus in the following sentences the participles are correctly related:-

    Being Japan Comics, we bought them all ! (Being=we bought.)

    The Error and Correction should be:-eg:-

    Being killed for their fins---(=as/because it was)

    sharks (subject) were (verb) endangered.


    Hence :-Being killed for their fins, sharks were endangered.

    (Since it was "sharks"who were "being killed", the participle is correctly related.)

    Killing for their fins, sharks could be endangered.

    (It was sharks who were being killed.)

    Being cut&killed (for fins), the sharks were endangered to live as (a) species.

    (It was the sharks who were being cut and killed.)

    Compare the example with your given, in which the participle is wrongly related:-eg:-

    We killed for their fins. Sharks are endangered !

    These are two sentences.

    However, they are cases where a participle may be found unattached and not logically related to the subject of the verb,when subject of the verb=sharks."We" is acting as another subject forming an independent sentence in construction of the second part of the second sentence.