2024-07-20 05:58 回答问题

谢邀！粗略读了下原文，试答如下：第一个问题，主语宾语相关必具性状语，如何与可选性状语区分。                         这个问题提的有启示意义，按夸克的说法，(i) Except for the obligatory adverbial in the SV A and SVOA types , adverbials are optional:那么 记住这几种必具性状语的使用范围就可以了。A.主语相关的多指连系动词be，get，turn等后面的表语成分，在是介词短语或副词的时候，有时候也被称为状语。比如She was in a hurry. The chrysalis slowly turned into a butterfly.（obligatory predication adjuncts） B. 某些不及物动词必须跟介词短语或副词(表示地点，方向，时间）等一起才能表达完整的意义。常见动词如go, last, live,lie,extend, lead,stretch. 我们可以说The road goes (leads)to Beijing. 但不能说 The road goes（leads）.语义不完整，语法不正确。但对这种状语的称呼不必太过在意，各种语法书常有不同叫法，比如However, some intransitive verbs co-occur with a constituent that expresses location, direction,or time, and which is obligatory in the sentence structure. This constituent is called the Adverbial Complement  C.而在有些动词如put,place,bring, drive ,get ,lay, 等使役动词的宾语后面，介词短语或副词表示地点，方向，目标等意义时，这些状语不可缺少，夸克称之为宾语相关必具性状语。She placed the baby on a blanket in the living room. (fict†)                                                        //Put a note on my door. (conv) // [You could take it to the kitchen] [and put it under the grill of the electric cooker [in order to get it hot]], without knowing why it should be hot. (fict) 这种状语其实和宾语补足语类似，The adverbial in the SVO d A pattern most typically expresses location. Unlike adverbials in general, it cannot normally be moved or be dispensed with (without making the proposition incomplete). It differs from ordinary locative adverbials in that it does not specify the circumstances of the ‘placing’, ‘putting’, etc., but rather describes where the referent of the direct object ends up.上面引自<<Grammar of Spoken and Written English>>一书，直接宾语后的介词短语被称为obligatory adverbial 而宾语补足语被称为object predicative也有不少语法学者把它们看作宾语补足语，这样就避免了所谓的必具性状语和一般性状语的区分，而只需要记住哪些动词是复杂及物动词即可。如《Analysing Sentences An Introduction to English Syntax》2016第四版把宾语补足语也称为object-predicative 并同时举了几个例子：[48] Jack finds his own jokes extremely funny. (AP)[49] They made Stella their spokesperson. (NP)[50] Liza put the liquor under her bed. (PP)其实该书的作者早在夸克语法大全刚出版就提出了这种更为简便的分析方法，在《The Linguistic Structure of Modern English》 （2010）一书中P.209：The object complement characterizes the object in the same way as the subject complement characterizes the subject: it identifies, describes, or locates the object (as in We chose Bill as group leader, We consider him a fool, She laid the baby in the crib), expressing either its current state or resulting state (as in They found him in the kitchen vs. She made him angry). It is not possible to delete the object complement without either radically changing the meaning of the sentence (e.g. She called him an idiot => She called him) or making the sentence ungrammatical (e.g. He locked his keys in his office=>  *He locked his keys).同样也把表位置的介词短语看作了宾补。还有《 English: An Essential Grammar》2019，第三版，称宾补为 object complement，并给出了He put the milk in the fridge.这个例子，而在以前的版本并没有这种表示位置的例句。第二个问题，至于无动词分句，语法界并无统一定义，不必过于执着，像Aarts 更是喜欢用small clause这个概念，并且把无动词分句非限定分句都包括了进去，甚至宾补结构也被纳入。无动词分句原来被Kruisinga 1932,Zandvoort 1969称为free adjuncts without a verbal form, Poutsma 1904 称这些结构为nominal clauses, 当时All of these authors,however, discuss verbless clauses as possible realisations of adverbials, ... 1972年，夸克等人在《当代英语语法》对无动词分句其它不同功用的可能性进行了讨论，认为它们极其类似非限制性关系从句。后来《英语语法大全》里进行了细化陈述，但都强调无动词分句的状语作用，所以，它们不是句子结构的必具成分，这也能从She gave us our coffee black.看出，black可省略而不影响结构和基本语义。（ She is here.这是一个标准的限定句，同时就是夸克所说主语相关必具性状语。也就是第一个问题的A类，其实看作主语补语就一劳永逸了，和名词形容词作主语补足语即表语一样，这样也就没有是不是必具性状语这个问题了。）夸克他们没有对这些结构作为限制性关系后修饰语的情况进行讨论。1989年Pieter de Haan 在其著作《Postmodifying Clauses in the English Noun Phrases》提出restrictive relative postmodifiers的概念，“Verbless clauses can fulfill different functions. They may be used as modifiers. According to De Haan : verbless clauses…can not be looked upon as phrases, they are called verbless clauses not merely because they can be extended to finite relative clauses, but because of the fact that their constituent parts relate to each other in ways that can not be described in terms of phrasal constituents (modifier-head, etc.), but only in terms of clausal functions .”但是无动词分句后来范围无限扩大，感觉所有进步了细化了的东西，一下又被带回了混沌初态，同时附和的人好像也不多。夸克的语法一是比较早，二是可能也不认同此观点，比如当代英语用法/英语语法大全的著者Leech等1975年就定义了无动词分句，在2021再版的《Grammar of Spoken and Written English》中仍然认为As with supplementive clauses, their role is usually adverbial.至于对语法结构的理解和判断，第一要务是先充分理解掌握这些词汇各自的语义和特殊用法，不能照猫画虎，依此类推，这才真正的语言功底，二是语境，词汇和语法结构显示可能讲的是什么，而语境帮助确定具体语义。词汇/语法/语境/逻辑 综合判断，夸克语法中例句I found the letter in the kitchen. I typed the letter in the kitchen.语义判别就不说了，只说在是宾补的情况下能不能看作verbless clause，如I found him in the kitchen，首先，他们是句子的必要成分，宾语+补足语，它们的整体意义要和谓语动词一起理解才完整，分开成句语义经常无法衔接，二是，我们经常有加上to be 的情况，I found him to be in the kitchen.那就明显不符合无动词分句的定义了。第三，更何况，宾语补足语还有很多带有非限定动词的情况，这样，把一种不固定的个别现象单独视为verbless clause,也会引起分类的混乱，徒增负担。但是你非要说这是verbless clause也不乏同行者，大咖Bas Aarts就认为(16) Martin considers [Tim a creep]. (17) Phil deems [Henry foolish].The bracketed clauses have been called verbless clauses , but a more recent term, which we will adopt in this book, is small clause (SC) . Small clauses are clauses that lack an overt verb, but can be said to contain an implicit verb be . 《ENGLISH SYNTAX AND ARGUMENTATION》2024，所以不用那么纠结。第三，双宾动词改为介词引出间接宾语，SVOA 夸克语法基本是看作状语的，此种情况下的介词短语作状语是必具性的，但是他同时又介绍了We later (16.56.ff) consider an alternative analysis in which the to-phrases and the for-phrases illustrated above are described as prepositional objects, and are regarded as grammatically equivalent to indirect objects.这种也有语法家视为复杂及物动词的必具性状语，如whereas in John gave a bunch of roses to Jenny one might hypothesise a complex-transitive verb give in the clause pattern SVOA (as suggested by Stan-dop (2000)。这和剑桥语法的处理基本相同。第四，夸克所说的不定式不能用于被动语态我理解是指不定式不能做主语改写为被动语态，  I told/advised/persuaded Mark to see a doctor.[ I ]~ Mark was told/advised/persuaded to see a doctor. [2]Like [D3] verbs, [D6] verbs form only the first passive exemplified in [2] above: we do not find *To see a doctor was told Mark. The following verbs belong to this class:至于最后那条注释，不明白所指为何。啰嗦一大堆，希望能稍解疑惑。一家之言，仅供参考！

2024-06-20 16:02 回答问题

谢邀！这个问题我曾经回答过https://www.cpsenglish.com/question/58140，这里借机介绍一下其历史来源。方便大家理解。其实你已经把其区别鉴别了出来。大家经常讨论的He is to blame,The house is to let.等句子其实是英语历史的沉淀，是化石级现象(the only construction productively found with a to-infinitive in OE but not PE is the one in the PE fossil He is to blame. ... there is a connection between the rise of the ECM-construction and the loss of the he is to blame-construction.)。从历史上看，古英语时期被动式尚在发展初期，由于各种关系如词形，变位，语序等问题，应用很少，在被动义表达方面，主动式和被动式之间的区别不甚分明。比如古英语中的 be + past participle（过去分词） 可表达三种语法意义：完成体、 主动态和被动态 。 如 “I was finished”对应的句子可理解为： I have finished（reading the book） （我已经读完了 这本书） ， I finished （reading the book） （我读完了这本书）和 My life has been finished （我命休矣） 。从 历 史 上 看， 在 古 英 语 中， be + past participle 形式“独揽天下”， 不论主动义或被动义均采用这一表达。 但是，约从公元 13 世纪中叶开始， have-perfect（即 have + past participle）形式开始出现，该形式主要表达主动义，慢慢把be + past participle 所表达的主动义（如上举 I am finished） 承接过来， 使 be + past participle 的语法义缩小，只能分析为被动态。约从公元 15 世纪开始，have + been + perfect（即 have +been + past participle） 开始在中古英语中站稳脚跟，进入公元 1800 年， 进行被动 （即 be +being + past participle 形式） 已发展成熟  。这样主动被动界限分明，只是偶尔大家会遇到历史残留的纯表状态的be+过去分词情况。在这个古英语时期，除了以上可以表达被动语义的形式以外，还有就是be+to不定式，亦可表达主动及被动语义，除上面两个例子外，还可见ðas ðing sint to donne // those things are to do=those things are to be done‟ // heo is to clænsienne fram leahtrum-> she is to cleanse from sins=„she is to be cleansed from sins.但如今已不用的例子。至于其被动与主动的语义解释语法界也意见并不统一。    这个be to blame和 to be blamed的区别静心老师已经总结，我赘述一下：有观点认为I am to blame.是to不定式作表语，意思是I am at fault.意为我有过错，该受责备，语用上作定性说明，着眼我本身的问题。而I am to be blamed.是被动不定式与助动词be一起构成表将来情况的谓语。被动不定式表一个内含施动者语义的施动动作。句子相当于 I'm going to be blamed .语用上作定向说明。（这是易仲良老师的观点）下面我把以前回答问题整理的东东复制一下：这个to blame 被当做习语对待，意思是“引起某事的原因” 或“是某人的过错” ，逻辑上有被动含义，但其实这个习语强调的某人某事是过错方，可以把 to blame这个不定式 当做一个形容词看待，一般不表示将来。 如，1) who is to blame?--"I"m to blame. 怪谁？--怪我。2)They were in no way to blame. 这绝不能怪他们。3) Nobody is to blame for it.这事谁也不怨。4）Which driver was  to blame for the accident ? 哪位司机是此次事故的肇事者？5） A freak storm was  to blame for the power outrage.停电的原因是一场反常的风暴。        to be blamed 意思有所不同，表示某人要被问责，责备，强调事件性动作性。但并不一定表示那真是他的过错，比如  1) Yes， somebody is to be blamed for Boracay's  mess ,they need someone to blame.  2)  Defoe is scarcely to be blamed for using his new-found art upon gross themes.笛福用他新发现的艺术来描绘世俗题材，这不应该受到指责。3） You are to be blamed and punished.4) He is greatly to be blamed for his negligence.他粗心大意，应该受到严重指责。（某院报文认为张道真语法大全里“He is to blame（=to be blamed）.”中这个to be blamed 不符合习惯用法，是错误的。其实不然）。to be blamed 是有将来性含义的是有将来时含义的。但是be to be blamed 用法不常见，主要表示被指责谴责这种行为，be to 有点像安排规定准备一样的意思，常见的用法有should be blamed,ought to be blamed,will be blamed.（当时的资料没留出处，抱歉）这两个化石级例子到底可不可以用被动形式，我看到的是当然可以。除大家列举的例子外，最简单的比如对比性语境，强调动作事件含义时，He is to be blamed, not to be praised. 类似例子如The goods are to sell.对比语境下The flat is to be sold, not to be let.所以根据语义确定用法是基础。一家之言，仅供参考。

2024-05-27 23:26 回答问题

个人觉得from the river 应该理解为状语，如果看作定语那么from the river或of the river就属于限制性定语，表类别，water之前应该使用定冠词the，这样整句的意思就是 “你不要喝（来自于河流的）河水”而原句的意思是 “你不要（直接）从河里喝水”。更进一步的区别有可能是，前一句甚至表示即使是处理过的河水也不要喝，而后一句则对是否喝处理过的河水是开放的。一家之言，仅供参考。

2024-04-27 23:02 回答问题

这个句子我认为可以分析为动名词分句做主语和表语，理由如下：现在大家对动名词分句的认定一般分为三种形式1） Him stupidly missing the penalty lost us the game.2) His stupidly missing the penalty lost us the game.3) His stupid missing ofthe penalty lost us the game.第一个句子是宾格动名词形式，但是，在主语为名词的时候，英语分不出主宾格，所以就会出现这样的例子：Bill eating ice cream is not a pretty sight.在该句中，eating被认为是中心词。这在夸克语法也有说明If the -i,zg clause has a subject, the item realizing the subject may be in the genitive case or otherwise in the objective case (for pronouns having a distinctive objective case) or common case (for all other noun phrases).类似的例句我引用Aarts 文章：[The deliberate sinking of the ship]was a criminal act.[The navy deliberately sinking the ship] was a criminal act.第一个例句是 verbal nouns heading noun phrases，第二个例句是verbs heading clausal structures,大家传统上称ing词为动名词，但Aarts认为We follow many modern grammars which prefer to regard structures headed by “verbal gerunds” like those in (4–6) as nonfinite clauses (see e.g. Quirk et al. 1985: 1063–64; Huddleston and Pullum et al. 2002: 80–83, Chap. 14; Aarts 2011: 221–31). 当然，蒋老师分析为分词定语是一种最常用的现象，但这里应该予以区分，比如下面例句：The young lady sitting next to you was wearing the T-shirt … [DI-B54 #64] (37) The traffic you are worried about is the traffic going towards London. [DL-B27 #40]  （these clauses function as modifiers within noun phrases. ）如何区分动名词还是分词，恐怕还是要从句法和语义着手，首先是看其语法功能，是名词位置还是形容词副词位置，其次，看ing句本身的语义问题。大家都知道，动名词没有明显的时间性，表示的往往是一种抽象的性质，和分词的时间性区别明显。在时和体上是中立的。其效果就是将分句事件提升为类型范围级别，并从具体的上下文（词汇语法上）推导出其作为事件标记的特性。一家之言，仅供参考

2024-04-07 13:51 回答问题

这个分析为省略了All 后的（that）做for的宾语可能更为合理些.

2024-02-11 14:42 回答问题

給管理员和各位老师朋友拜年了，来本站的两年让我增长了很多知识，结识了很多朋友，把三四十年前的强烈爱好-英语重新激发了出来，在试图帮助别人的同时，找到自己的快乐，尤其受益于向曹老师和Alex老师的请教，在此表达我衷心的感谢！同时谢谢海林同学的心意，我们都是来互学互助，开心进步是我们的出发点。最后，㊗️我们的网站越办越好，各位同仁龙年进步，兴旺，健康，快乐，一帆风顺！

2023-11-12 23:03 回答问题

这个问题的解释最好是上面两位老师观点的综合，即第一，这是存在句型应该是没问题的，第二，这也是倒装。第三，楼主认为是a preserved letter不合理，正常的是 a letter preserved,至于怎么分析preserved,可能会有一些看法分歧，但我倾向于看作被动语态或补足成分，又或者是小句，但不是定语后置。（虽然有些情况可能是后置定语。）下面我分别举例说明。第一，存在句的形式很复杂，我只介绍不常见的相关例子 ，即及物动词出现在存在句，正常情况下是不被允许的，但是被动态的及物动词是常见的。比如 In recent years there has been produced more food than the country needs. （徐广联）） There‘s a new grammar been written.（夸克）当然，有人认为不是被动态，而是名词后的分词短语出现前置情况，这个自己判断吧，确实情况各有不同。以下例句类似楼主的例子There was presented (to the winner) by the mayor a gold medal. (Quirk et al. 1985 1409) --There was a gold medal presented to the winner by the mayor.(Quirk).There has been a whole box stolen. There was presented to me a papaya. There were shown to us, by the diggers, several interesting specimens.(Bolinger)。当然我们最常见的情况是分词后置There has been a wooden bridge built over the river. There's been a terrible mistake made. Has there been anyone killed? In each case there has been a serious mistake made. There has been a massive welcome organised. There has been a whole box stolen.=A whole box has been stolen. 附带：注意，有些情况下，被非宾格限制的及物动词完全可以被接受。(这些特殊情况应该是只做了解，切勿模仿）如：Then，all of a sudden, there reached her ear the sound of angel voices.  / At this point,there hit the embankment a shell from our own lines.( Kuno & Takami 2004 :40)第二，当there存在句的名词短语太长时，作为后置修饰语的分词也可以前移至名词短语之前，使句子显得较为平稳，合乎句子的末端尾重原则。There were running in the garden a group of children aged from seven to eleven.There was shown at the exhibition an electronic computer made in Shanghai.倘若名词短语的修饰语太长，这种分词的前移甚至是强制性的：From the Norweigan,Dannish and Iceland historians,and from some parts of the old Northern Poetry, there may be found a different idea about the character and domestic manners of the man who made themselves so unpleasant in their visits to the English and neighbouring coast. There has just been published as a Parliamentary paper the Convention between this country and the United States respecting the Protection and Propagation of Food Fishes in the waters contiguous to the United States and Canada. 也有人认为，这种句子系属there存在句的被动式和进行体。第三，preserved如果被看做是前置定语，意义很奇怪，不合逻辑--在华盛顿的文件中有一封被保存下来的信件（他保存的吗？显然不是）所以，应该是一封信被保存下来。这个preserved 表示的是信件所处的一种状态。这里想附带说明的是，国内语法有说明的多是把分词短语看作后置定语，这个其实很不合理，这个后置短语（分词，介词，形容词等）大多表示的都是逻辑主语所处的状态，而不是对其的描述或限制。当然也有情况是后置定语，这个要看上下文的具体情况。我引些例子：(8) a. There was a book completely burnt to ashes.b. There was a live pig roasted. (Milsark 1974: 84)Under the depictive analysis Hartmann argues for, (8a) is predicted to assert that there existed a book in acompletely burnt state. Our intuitions tell us, however, that the sentence actually asserts that there existedsome event in which a book was completely burnt. Similarly, (8b) is predicted to assert the existence of alive pig in a roasted state. But according to our intuitions, the sentence asserts instead that there was anevent of a live pig getting roasted (and, consequently, the pig ended up in a completely roasted state). Asfar as we can see, there is no way for the depictive analysis to overcome such inadequacies.  （这段话我就不翻了）个人观点，仅供参考。

2023-10-25 17:03 回答问题

神仙打架，我们也起哄一番。首先，对wh-关系词究竟属于主句还是关系句的争论久已有之，这一方面是分析方法的原因，同时也是语言本身奥繁复杂的结果。比如认为属于主句的The Adjunction Analysis(AA), originally due to Bresnan & Grimshaw (1978), assumes that the wh-phrase itself is in fact an external head, contrary to appearances; the FR-internal gap is the result of some process other than raising.另外一种分析把wh-phrase 归于自由关系从句The competing Raising Analysis（RA）, popularized in Groos & van Riemsdijk 1981 (there called ‘COMP Account’), assumes that some null nominal or determiner takes the FR clause as its complement. The disagreement, in short, is about the FR-internal vs. -external status of the wh-phrase. 这应该是产生张赵二人观点分歧的原因。这么看这个同时性并不是张教授的独家见解。The wh-phrase at the edge of the FR has to match selectional requirements of both matrix and embedded environments: The phrase is “shared”between both predicates, each imposing separate requirements. 如何解释其在主从句中两用共享时格问题和成分问题，就可能有了差异。我们常见的夸克语法和剑桥语法都是认为wh-phrase属于自由关系从句，是融合关系词，这个关系词在从句内也同时担当两个角色，既是NP（这个名词性关系从句实质上就是NP）名词短语中心词，又是从句主语，比如[Whoever said that] was trying to mislead you. 这个句子，Whoever is simultaneously head of the NP and subject of the relative clause that modifies it.这是Rodney Huddleston等人的观点。另外，大家基本都是把整个名词关系句看作一个成分作主语，宾语，表语等，只是对what等（缩合关系词）的语法推导解释，那是各显神通。其实也是偶尔有人把它们直接称作宾语或主语的。比如Andrew Radford的书中有：(vii)[Whomever you elect] will serve a four-year term : Here, the free relative pronoun whomever originates as the complement of (and so is assigned accusative case by) the verb elect, even though it ends up as the subject of will.老点的书《英美语惯用法词典》也有例子：Whoever (=Anyone who) says so is a liar.谁那样说，谁就在说谎。〔whoever 具有双重构造，是says，is两者的主语。也就是说is的主语he被省略，包含在 whoever中)，【个人观点：其实，what就是what，就是一个词，表达一个概念，把它解释成the thing which等也只是个解释而已，（应该有某种我们没发现的合理缺省），并不能把它们和原词等同。很明显，它们起到的作用是不同的，只能说是真值上大致是相等了。用心体会一下，我们会发现，what的意义范围和语气都要比改写the thing which强很多，what让我们有整体的，所有的那种强调的感觉（all），语气上是更贴近更关心的状态。就像我们用it，that，等指代前事，都不如which关系代词心理距离更显得贴近。事实上，this is what I need就是一个强调句】这种一分为二的解释确实带来词性和内容上的问题。所以，跟主流看法不同的观点也有出现，比如把what-就看作个体，而不是融合体。生成分析上它后面可能是零操作词that，或者干脆是它的影子复制。重点看中括号里面从句包括的内容，也就了解了各种假设。I eat [ NP/DP Ø [ CP what(-ever) i they cook t i ]]   Ø表示空的，不存在a. I eat [what(-ever food) [ CP they cook _ ]]b. I eat [the food [ CP (that) they cook _ ]]I eat [what(-ever) i [ CP they cook it i ]]I eat [what(-ever) [ CP what(-ever) i they cook t i ]]那么，到底该怎么理解这个问题呢？很简单，把它们结合起来，语言的多样性需要根据实际情况用两种方法分别予以解释。这是比较新的观点。we argue that both analyses coexist as derivational options: some FRs require a raising derivation, while others are inconsistent with it. We support this conclusion with evidence from reconstruction, by showing that the wh-phrase of an FR can be interpreted both internally (in the FR) and externally (in the main clause), necessitating both types of analyses. 再说那个格的问题。英语主要是德语方言的变种，幸好远离德国本土后各种性数格变化，强弱动词变化，逐渐消失了，有限的一点也被现代人鄙视，比如，英国基本不用whomever，而美国也只是在正式场合才用。所以基本上用whoever就对了，但准确点还是最好根据其在它本身句中的功用成分来确定。这里简单提一下成分匹配和格问题a. I drank [ FR whatever there was ]b. I’ll reread whatever paper John has worked *(on)c. *I’ll reread on whatever paper John has workedd. I’ll live wherever you livee. I’ll live in whatever town you live (in)If the matrix verb requires an NP/DP, then the FR pronoun has to be of thatcategory, as we see in (1a-c). The same holds for a PP requirement (1e).However, English has preposition stranding. Although there is a conflict in(1b) with respect to the forms required by the verbs – the matrix verb re-quires a direct object, i.e. an NP/DP, and the embedded verb a PP –, a FR ispossible, if the pronoun moves up alone and strands its preposition (1b).格问题也列举几个例子，I will give a bonus to whoever works the hardest.I will call whomever the doctor recommends.Whoever said that (S) does not understand the question.[Whomever you elect] will serve a four-year term但是有时候也可能碰到不太合乎标准的例子，不足为怪，感觉习惯使然。比如a man whom I don't think has any friends主格却用了宾格形式，不符合我们上面的规定，但确实没错，合乎语法，原因恐怕是离think太近，人们产生了错觉。以剑桥语法为参考做个结尾吧(5) a. Whoever loves you must be mad.    (Nom – Nom à who)b. I hate who(m)ever you love.       (Acc – Acc à who(m))c.?? I hate whomever loves you.      (Acc – Nom à who)d.?* Whomever loves you must be mad.   (Nom – Nom à who)As it turns out, however, this constraint is not very strict (cf. Huddleston et al. 2002: 1974): although the constructions in (5c-d) are more likely to be regarded as questionable, they frequently occur (especially in the COCA). Some examples are given in (6):(6) a. … to investigate, pursue and apprehend whomever started the fire (COCA)b. In fact, we know that whomever is nominated by our party will be subjected to the same kind of withering attacks. (COCA)  砖抛了，等拍！

2023-10-19 15:40 回答问题

小王同学布置的作业，不好意思老是不交。但这些专家的观点一般都有所本，未敢轻易臧否。下面仅试着解释一下。      插入语（parentheticals）这个概念大家的理解经常不一，但比较常见的就是结构上独立，不和其它成分发生语法上的联系，语义上，表示一种态度，解释或进一步的说明，删除后不影响句子基本意义的完整，从这几个条件看，上面两个句子里相关成分虽然能够删除，但是语义上是可能有变化的。因为这个what其实就是个所谓的缩合关系代词或者连接代词，在这种句子结构里起着一种变量的作用，和其它成分一起构成语义界定范围，而后面的东西才是要表达的定量，所以，what is called/ what we call 等类似的句子有时起着一种限定作用，删除以后不能保证句子的精确性。从结构上看，虽然有时候删除不影响意义，但是，这个删除的成分和句子是有着语法结构上的联系的，而删除的东西也不是一个独立完整的概念。语法研究者确实有人把这种结构看作插入语，但据我看到的资料，属于少数。多数是把它们看作自由关系从句，而且有个专门的名称叫 明晰自由关系从句（Transparent Free Relatives），geniuses和the lowly这些被称为Transparent Nucleus.  引个例子：1. John saw what he believed to be racoons outside. (Schütze & Stockwell 2019: 1)2. John ate what Mary cooked .1句是TFR，2句是FR。个人理解--这么称呼可能是因为自由关系从句所表达的一般都是模糊变量，而这里的明晰自由关系从句却含有明确的模糊变量的对应核心词，这个核心词与前面的what结构变量描述当然有语义重叠，所以，删除了好像对句子意义影响也不大（John saw raccoons outside (or at least, what he believed to be raccoons)，there is debate over whether this accurately reflects the meaning of (1).），这多少反映了这个成分语义上有插入语的性质. 要注意的是，我们说插入语或者自由关系从句是从功能性质方面解释的，具体到句法结构里的成分，应该是按常规来解析，比如上面a和b句，what-clause的句法成分当然是作saw的宾语。    小王同学说，Most of what we call geniuses are successful only because they have made extraordinary efforts. 不能分析为插入语，给出的结构理由很充分，去掉了what we call ,most of geniuses 不成立了，句法上证明有关联性。这种明晰自由关系从句公认的只有what一词能引导，最近也有学者认为who在某些情况下也可以（看例句总觉得意思很别扭，暂且排除）。而用在what明晰自由关系从句里的动词应该是能带有补语的动词（包括宾补，表语补语等predicative complements ）如call，name，describe, believe，seem,等，就是说，what在意义上是核心词的逻辑主语.指人的时候也用what，看几个例子，了解一下TFR和FR的区别：John should have married what/*who his mother would call a traditional woman.a. What John calls pebbles are lying on the lawn.b. What John calls a banjo is lying on his desk.(Schelfhout, Coopen & Oosdijk 2004) standard free relatives appear in the position that is occupied by nominals, where as transparent free relatives can be treated as AP, AdvP, PP, and nonfinite VP. If the kernel element is an AP, the whole free relative is regarded as AP.a. You’re definitely not [ AP what any one would describe as ecstatic].b. In that process I begin to work [ AdvP what I would call creatively].c. She definitely wasn’t [ PP what she’d call in love with Sam Butler].d. We started [ nonfinite VP what we call picking corn].(Kim 2011)transparent free relatives are transparent with regard to grammatical category as well as number agreement. (19) *There is what you ordered on your desk.(20) a. There is what John might call a banjo on his desk.b. *There is what John might call his banjo on his desk.(Schelfhout, Coopen & Oosdijk 2004)The ungrammaticality of the sentence (19) suggests that the standard free relative clause is definite. On the contrary, the definiteness of transparent free relatives seems to change depending on the clause-internal kernel NPs.个人理解，权作参考。

2023-10-06 03:08 回答问题

这个问题我赞同Alex老师的意见。各位老师引用的资料当然没错，但问题就出在单词的语义理解上。当我们问价格是多少的时候，是问的表示价值的价格数字，所以我们说“What' the price?” 当我们问一件物品价值多少，问的是物品的价值数量，所以我们说“How much is that?” 这和我们问房间号和问数学算式类似：What is your room number? What is two and two? 所以，单就表示价格的数字本身无所谓贵贱，只有高低，但是当我们进行价格比较的时候，比的就是它们代表的数量了，这时可以用much来表示量，只是可能这种比较的例句少，不好找佐证。我在韦氏词典看到一类似例句，可以证明价格比较可以用much，little等修饰。The price is less online than at the store, but once you add shipping costs, it’s a wash. [=the two prices are about the same] 另一个问题就是比较项的问题，这里that one 没有上下文，指代不明，如果就其本身来分析，则只能是指that price，而不是that skirt.所以，让句子意义明晰完整的可能说法应该是：The price of this skirt is three times as much as the price of that one. 或者The price of this skirt is three times as much as that one’s又或者如Alex老师所说The price of this skirt is three times as much as that one costs. 个人观点，仅供参考