→ BigBreast: Ving前方要放上主詞時 傳統文法是要求放所有格 your 10/01 21:51
→ BigBreast: 但實際上口語幾乎都用受格 you 10/01 21:51
→ BigBreast: 因為大家生活上其實都用受格 10/01 21:57
推 vincentman: 同意樓上，口語常將動名詞前的所有格以受格代替 10/01 22:50
→ vincentman: 可看成I said everything about your being traitor.. 10/01 22:54
→ PPmYeah: with-O-OC結構 的推廣 10/01 23:01
→ BigBreast: 個人認為being不能解釋成分詞或OC 因為文意不合 10/02 07:27
→ BigBreast: 文意是"你是叛徒(這件事)" 而非"身為叛徒的你" 10/02 07:28
→ BigBreast: 而且像Why does me being fat offend so many people? 10/02 07:31
→ BigBreast: 這句就無法以分詞或補語解釋 10/02 07:32
→ BigBreast: 分詞: Why do I, being fat, offend so many people? 10/02 07:39
→ PPmYeah: 我覺得樓上你搞混分詞和補語的概念了 10/03 11:22
→ PPmYeah: O+OC 不代表是關代結構:antecedant+who is SC 10/03 11:24
→ PPmYeah: 我對它的看法是 S-is-SC 在從屬式下的結構調整 10/03 11:25
→ PPmYeah: Why does (me[S] being fat[C]) offend so many people 10/03 11:27
→ PPmYeah: 原句:Why does＂THAT I AM FAT＂ offend so many people 10/03 11:28
→ BigBreast: "分詞"是回應d大的連結 不是回應你 10/03 13:32
→ BigBreast: 假設是補語 那應該是主格I 無法解釋為何變受格me 10/03 13:35
→ BigBreast: 而且假設是補語 那being fat中的being應該可省 10/03 13:36
→ BigBreast: 例如Why does me being fatter than you upset you? 10/03 13:38
→ BigBreast: > Why does me fatter than you upset you? 10/03 13:39
→ BigBreast: 但實際上不行 所以這個being是動名詞 10/03 13:41
→ BigBreast: 當然 為何以受格代替所有格的確可能是受到O+OC影響 10/03 13:45
→ BigBreast: 例如 I saw him lying there. > 10/03 13:46
→ BigBreast: Him lying there is what I saw. 很直觀 故取代標準的 10/03 13:48
→ BigBreast: His lying there is what I saw. 10/03 13:48
→ BigBreast: 但不代表結構真的是O+OC 因為 Ving 不可省略 10/03 13:49
推 PPmYeah: 就類似變格的概念而已 怎麼會無法解釋? 這現象在歐語更 10/04 02:47
→ PPmYeah: 更普遍.. 10/04 02:47
→ PPmYeah: "假設是補語,那being fat中的being應該可省"..哪一本文法 10/04 02:47
→ PPmYeah: 書這麼寫? 我認為在語法手段上 你過於窄化分詞和補語的概 10/04 02:51
→ PPmYeah: 念了 有興趣的話 關鍵字:nominative/genitive/accusative 10/04 02:52
→ BigBreast: 噗 有沒有可能是你過度擴張補語的概念 而非我窄化它? 10/04 07:11
→ BigBreast: With me (being) fatter than you, do you think I 10/04 07:34
→ BigBreast: stand a chance of winning this game? 10/04 07:35
→ PPmYeah: 你果然對於補語的認識非但很粗糙,還很混亂,完全沒講到重 10/04 09:05
→ PPmYeah: 點. 10/04 09:05
→ PPmYeah: <假設是補語 那應該是主格I 無法解釋為何變受格me>這一句 10/04 09:06
→ PPmYeah: 顯示你不知道[補語跟前面是主格或受格(格變化)有無關係], 10/04 09:07
→ PPmYeah: 【主格變受格,跟後面的補語是否連動】,看起來你並不清楚. 10/04 09:07
→ PPmYeah: 答:主格變受格,的解釋權或責任不在補語身上,別鬧了 10/04 09:08
→ PPmYeah: 又或者你誤以為me是一種補語? 那就很離譜了 10/04 09:09
→ PPmYeah: <而且假設是補語 那being fat中的being應該可省>..OK!那 10/04 09:10
→ PPmYeah: 請問能不能省略是由何決定? 看作者心情嗎? 以及<假設是補 10/04 09:11
→ PPmYeah: 語 那being fat中的being應該可省>這規則出自哪本文法書? 10/04 09:11
→ PPmYeah: 結果你說being是動名詞,ok這是你的說法,...但你知道動名 10/04 09:13
→ PPmYeah: 詞也可以是補語嗎? 10/04 09:14
→ PPmYeah: <假設是補語..being應可省..但實際上不..,所以being是動 10/04 09:15
→ PPmYeah: 名詞,(而不是補語)>...順著你的推理脈絡,最後會推得being 10/04 09:16
→ PPmYeah: 是動名詞,而不是補語,對吧? ...把詞類跟格位混為一談,這 10/04 09:16
→ PPmYeah: 是很嚴重的錯誤. 10/04 09:16
→ PPmYeah: 不是我過度擴張補語概念,動名詞也可以是補語,這是常識... 10/04 09:17
→ PPmYeah: 至於<Him lying there is what I saw..不代表結構真的是O 10/04 09:18
→ PPmYeah: +OC,因為 Ving 不可省略>..那麼你如何解釋這裡的Him lyin 10/04 09:19
→ PPmYeah: -g there? 我猜你把它當動名詞解,那麼him怎麼解? 10/04 09:19
→ BigBreast: 幹嘛猜?? 我一直認為這裡lying是動名詞不是分詞阿 10/04 09:41
→ BigBreast: 為何用him取代his前面早說過了 10/04 09:42
→ BigBreast: 就是native speaker知道I saw him lying there.是對的 10/04 09:45
→ BigBreast: 當他想說 X is what I saw. 或 What I saw is X.時 10/04 09:46
→ BigBreast: 很自然就會把 him lying there 填入 X 裡面 10/04 09:46
→ BigBreast: 但其實應該放上的是 "his" lying there 10/04 09:48
→ BigBreast: 也就是說骨子裡仍是動名詞 只是外表模仿 O+OC 10/04 09:52
→ BigBreast: 為何說骨子裡仍是動名詞 就是因為此處動詞若換上be時 10/04 09:55
→ BigBreast: 是否能省略就會透露出 being 其實非形容詞(現在分詞) 10/04 09:57
→ BigBreast: 而是動名詞 10/04 09:57
→ PPmYeah: 模仿XD 這解釋優秀 Me being happy 一定也是因為被him看 10/04 10:20
→ PPmYeah: 見了(羞) 10/04 10:20
→ BigBreast: 請解釋 Why does me fatter than you upset you? 為何 10/04 10:46
→ BigBreast: 錯誤 但 Why does me being fatter than you upset you 10/04 10:47
→ BigBreast: ? 卻是對的句子 fatter than you 或 being fatter than 10/04 10:47
→ BigBreast: you 都可以當作補語阿 10/04 10:47