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
|
发表于 2018-11-23 23:32:14
|
显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 鸭呼嘿 于 2018-12-3 16:42 编辑 : S/ @' w0 _; k) D& t
9 q6 t& y+ _) q, U# d/ h* F
1) about definition7 u, c7 J2 o- ?
9 Y) B6 D5 U* y6 d7 N' k
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.
1 t# Y. |; O( l( a
* {* A7 M# N# J9 y. @* s9 [ 2) about restrictive and non-restrictive attributive clauses& f/ U3 o s1 f' v8 g" u
. E, u! y. h, N6 M: m9 u. F 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.$ y- y* b# n2 f2 C6 s+ h7 W
! m" V' C5 y2 K8 y% K8 `1 h. p ----That is the elderly lecturer I told you the other day who enjoys talking about life in a humorous way.0 }2 U- g+ ~8 O1 b% q. k" x. X h
, q8 Z! u- S" w& Q1 _
Here the attributive clause is unlikely to be non-attributive, because you use it to identify which lecturer you're talking about.$ W6 c; p/ y! x, g1 d
- {! o* _+ a& t0 p# a
---- That is the elderly lecture, who is also a good gulf player.
. v* j2 L4 k+ e7 A6 n R
{, y5 B7 v0 ?# `. r- g( m) L8 E 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.5 L. `7 J- N1 w9 ^0 j8 [( q, x
! V9 W, b! I5 W1 { L; ] 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.- j$ ]) h1 `, m& u2 ~5 m. V
6 d2 G- X2 c1 Q6 Q) V2 K: h/ Y4 P 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.9 }* Q# z) |/ ^, {
1 F L% W. S( E- y! p9 {' @ 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.$ }* w5 V$ c' ?3 k. }8 |& B1 n
5 R7 G" Z- y* q9 G2 a: j
3) coming back to your answer:2 P' {% {$ h2 k# E9 w
! r8 l4 P$ U9 L% T( x+ P3 z
From the discussion above, I think you'd have already had a concept in mind how I'll answer your question:
& p. Z! x6 X1 X7 D+ O+ H# M7 h5 N9 u5 K# Q# x
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.
% A D0 {: C( x* n) [ |
评分
-
1
查看全部评分
-
|
