同位语前面是否可以加否定词?

句子:All this may help explain the government’s surprising embrace of private charity, not something people are supposed to need in a proletarian paradise.

请问,这里的not something到底是什么成分? 是否是加了否定词的同位语,修饰private charity?

又或=which is not something...的非限制性定从?

如果是,为什么可以省略which is呢?是报刊英语的习惯吗?

请先 登录 后评论

最佳答案 2020-07-12 21:20

网友误读了这个句子。这其实是一种简略的并列结构:A,(but) not B. 肯定A,否定B。but可以省略。例如:我要把这本书给汤姆,而不是给你。英文为:I will give this book to Tom, (but) not you.

这种结构中,A可能是句子的主语,也可能是句子中的动词或介词的宾语。

Tom did it, not you. A为主语。

I like Tom, not you. A为动词宾语。

This is for Tom, not you. A 为介词宾语。

注意A和B之间既不是同位关系,也不是修饰关系,而是并列关系。即not B是第二个并列分句省略的结果,省略了相同的句子成分,只保留了不同成分。

网友的这个句子就是这种A,(but) not B 并列结构,省略了but. 其中 A=private charity;B = something people are supposed to need in a proletarian paradise。

B 是一个名词性结构,名词性结构不可能作后置定语,排除后置定语。

not B 不可能是同位语。

A 和 B 并不是修饰关系,而是并列关系。用省略which is来解释是对句子意思的严重误解。该句的正确解读,是补上省略的but:

All this may help explain the government’s surprising embrace of private charity,  but not something people are supposed to need in a proletarian paradise.


以下为COCA有关 A,(but) not B 的部分例句,既有带but的,也有省略but的。为求简便以 (but ) not you 搜索。


Every Handmaid who followed you into disobedience will face the

consequences, but not you.

Let others leave their futures in other people's hands, but not you.

All the technicians etc. should get paid, but not you. Why?

Why was I sent away, but not you?

They probably hate me, but not you. Listen, all that stuff, my fault.

I expect that from your mother, but not you.


What will make that person, not you, feel better?

My concern is for the country, not you guys.

I am not the one who worked 37 years for the federal government, not you.

He was the one who broke your trust, not you

You may " blame " Obama, but Congress agrees with him, not you.

Eventually, the responsibility for their issues falls on them, not you.

请先 登录 后评论

其它 2 个回答

刘永科   - 教育出版集团英语总顾问 & 英语系列图书主编
擅长:语法理论,语言学,文化背景

All this may help explain the government’s surprising embrace of private charity, not something people are supposed to need in a proletarian paradise.
【翻译】所有这些,都可能有助于表明政府对私人慈善的出乎意料的包容,(慈善)不是无产者乐园人们应该追求的东西。

not something people are supposed to need in a proletarian paradise,是private charity 的定语,非限制性定语。相当于一个非限制性定语从句。虽然可以理解为省略了 which is,但没有必要使用定语从句。

为什么可以省略 which is 呢?是报刊英语的习惯吗?

这种说法是对句子结构的一种误解。作定语不一定非要使用定语从句不可!我们交际和表达思想,可以有多种方式,句子可以千姿百态,能作后置定语的成分简直太多了。为何要局限于一个定语从句呢?

这里也不是同位语。道理就是:A  is not B.   但,A ≠ not B 。 not B 带有描述意义,不是概念意义。就好像:He is Tom, not John.  我们能说,“汤姆” 和 “非约翰” 是一个概念吗?not John 其实是描述意义,不是概念意义,不是同位成分。

 

请先 登录 后评论
Leo4037
20/07/11 19:46 句子:All this may help explain the government’s surprising embrace of private charity, not something (which) people are supposed to need in a proletarian paradise..这个是定语从句先行词,省掉了关系代词which.你看看可以读通没
请先 登录 后评论
  • 1 关注
  • 1 收藏,2234 浏览
  • cdt 提出于 2020-07-11 19:46

相似问题