The researchers also filtered the sharks' feces from the water using a fine mesh, allowing them to test how much of what went in came out.
请问老师,有人说这个allowing是现在分词做目的状语,对么?
目的状语的逻辑主语不就是主语吗?那么研究人员自己让自己显然不太合理。
我觉得应该是feces的非限定性定语,对么?可是这样一来这句子的成分就有些间隔太远容易歧义了吧?
PS:我觉得不是做mesh的非限定性定语的原因主要是因为逻辑没有feces更贴合。那么如果mesh这个位置的名词恰好也可以和后句的分词形成符合逻辑的动作的时候,又该如何理解语法呢?是不是那时候的现在分词作谁的定语就完全看逻辑而没法看语法了呢?
allowing的逻辑主语为前面整个句子,这种状语的作用是对句子作补充说明。如果有明显的结果意义,则可分析为结果状语(句子状语)。这个分词作状语可以改为which引导的关系分句,which的先行词为主句内容。
The researchers also filtered the sharks' feces from the water using a fine mesh, which allowed them to test how much of what went in came out.
或者改为并列句:
The researchers also filtered the sharks' feces from the water using a fine mesh, and this allowed them to test how much of what went in came out. (this 指代主句内容)
如果觉得我的回答对您有用,请随意打赏。你的支持将鼓励我继续创作!
The researchers also filtered the sharks' feces from the water using a fine mesh(方式状语), allowing them to test how much of what went in came out.(结果状语)
状语的名称,是根据其在句中的作用和意思决定的。不要考虑复杂了,你只需考虑它与谓语动词或整个句意的关系,即可判断出是什么性质的状语。
现在分词不作目的状语,当你觉得它是目的状语的时候,一般分析为伴随状语。
如果觉得我的回答对您有用,请随意打赏。你的支持将鼓励我继续创作!