Thursday, August 6, 2009

that non-defining

以下摘自我以前貼的舊文:
http://www.english.com.tw/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=5927&forum=11&post_id=24746#forumpost24746
djyang是我本人

Q:
...(snipped)...
以下出於cambridge的 Advanced Grammar in use

e.g.Thieves [who] stole painting from Notford art gallery have been arrested in Paris.

比較下句

e.g.The drugs,[which/that] are used to treat stomach ulcer,have been withdrawn from sale.
...(snipped)...





(My) A:

#2
> e.g.The drugs,[which/that] are used to treat stomach ulcer,have been withdrawn from sale.

這句是不是完全照書上打的?(cambridge的 Advanced Grammar in use)

因為這情況下的that不會是可能的寫法...



#6
> 但是那本書上類似的題型都是以non defining clause為答案,
> 我就有點不大懂為什麼會這樣

關於that用在non-defining我也是想不大通,尤其那本書以及出版的"單位"還算是有名氣的,所以找了資料。原來在以前確實常用,但是以近代來說就不是了(*1)。本來我在想也許是美英用法的差別(在英國可以這樣子用?),但是我手邊的文法書就有英國人寫的,也不是這樣子,查了英國的BBC上的也不是(*2),所以真的是很奇怪...

我附近的書局沒Cambridge那本書,有在圖書館查詢網路找到,但是是在別的town,我訂來看了,只是要花個一兩天才會送到我這邊的圖書館,到時我再看看是怎麼一回事.....(有新的發現我再回報 :p )



(*1)http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxthatvs.html
"....
Nonrestrictive clauses are now nearly always introduced by "which" or "who" (although "that" was common in earlier centuries)
..."
(*2)Which / that
"...
But, 'that' can only be used in what we call identifying relative clauses....
...."
(註: 限定關係XX中的「限定」的英文有很多種說法,指的都是一樣的東西,比如defining, identifying, essential, ..等等)



#9
> 以下出於cambridge的 Advanced Grammar in use

你的是不是綠皮第二版? 我從圖書館借到的應是初版十刷(First published 1999, Tenth printing 2003). Printed in Great Britain by BemroseBooth, Derby

書皮是暗紅棕色,有附解答(ISBN 0-521-49868-6)

這部分的內容和你的版本有些出入...
引文:


UNIT 71
Relative Clauses (2) (Tom, who is only six, can speak three languages.)
...
...
When we use a non-defining relative clause to add information about a thing or group of things, we use which as the subject or object of the clause:
  * These drugs, which are used to treat stomach ulcers, have been withdrawn from sale.
  * That Masters course, which I took in 1990, is no longer taught at the college.

That is sometimes used instead of which, but some people think this is incorrect, so it is probably safer not to use it. We also use which to refer to the whole situation talked about in the sentence outside the relative clause:
  * The book won't be published until next year, which is disappointing.
  * I have to go to hospital on Monday, which means I won't be able to see you.

雖然大部份內容大同小異,但是從不可以的變成可以,這小部分的改變算是相當大....

======================
(Update)
今天在Harvard Coop書局找到新版的Advanced Grammar In Use(2nd edition),還真的是如同sung說的。好奇下我翻了同系列的Grammar In Use Intermediate(不同作者),在講relative clause的non-defining部分卻是說"...must use 'which' ..... (not 'what'....)",連"that"都沒有提到...



#11

引文:

    所以作者之前應該是用這樣的邏輯去寫 "that" 在賣葯的那句子的寫



No... 我比較過同本書初版和第二版同一章節的內容,原作者在新版裡頭確實是如同原PO說的在非限定關代的情況下"可以"使用that.(初版的解釋則是建議不要這樣子用)。然後同樣的練習題在初版的答案是which,第二版則是改成that(或是that也可以)(比如原PO問的那幾題)

比較麻煩的是原作者後來更改的內容也不是完全錯誤-->
輔助閱讀:
http://alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxthatvs.html


-------------------------------------


https://www.englishforums.com/English/CommaAmericanEnglish/vdjrn/post.htm
Longman Dictionary ( way more in American version)

e.g. wicker: ..... candle, that burns ....