※ 引述《xiaoa (不事生产)》之铭言： : 抱歉,现在换我不懂了 : 主格、受格应该是指引出子句的 [the things] 在子句之原句 : 即 we believe (that) [the things] are holding .... : 但 [the things are holding ....] 实际上应该是一整个子句 先不要把we believe当作插入语 在 we believe [(that) the things are holding our families together]中 [the things are ...]的确如xi所说是一整个子句 但更精确地说，是由「that」引导的名词子句 在这里，that不是关系代名词， that所引导的名词子句，作为主词时，that不可以省略 作为受词时，that通常会省略 故believe的受词是[the things are holding our families together]这个名词子句 而不是[the things]这个名词 : 如果把we believe当插入语, 就有主格关代被省略的问题 : Sometimes the things that are holding .... really aren't : ^^^^ we believe 拿走後应该存在的 关代(that) 的确，这是我原来感到疑惑的地方，为什麽会没有关代??造成两个动词的矛盾 : 而且这句子真要把 we believe 拿掉, : [the things are holding ....] : 意思就变调了 也许吧..只是本句我理解的一直是同一个意思..所以不太能体会变调的感觉 唯一的疑惑是文法的结构而已 : 我原本的看法是[the things]当先行词时, 其下子句的内的[the things]必须去掉 : the things that [we believe that (the things are ....)] aren't 这里我就对xi的文法结构感到不解了.. the things that we believe.(我们所相信的事情) ^^^^关系代名词，先行词为the things，同时作为believe的受词 we believe ((that) the things are ...) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^名词子句，believe的受词 但是合并起来变成.. the things that [we believe ((that) the things are...)] ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 到底是谁要当受词??? : 在 [we believe ......] 这层子句, the things 是受格(的部分)*1 : 所以外层(Sometimes the things)的that可省略 : 我本来想说, the things 同时也是内层的子句的一部分, 是不是 : 该把内层(believe 後面)的 that补偿回来?*2(至少子句不会跑出一个没头儿的动词) : 但似乎依照惯例, believe 後面的 that好像是随高兴 爱省略就省略 因为不想把原来的段落分开，所以用颜色标注讨论 *1, xi在前面已经指出[the things are holding...]是一个完整的子句 没错，我同意，而且说它是作为believe受词的名词子句 但是在这里xi似乎又单独认为the things是believe的受词，而非整个子句是受词 这与我的文法概念相冲突 如果一开始就认为只有the things是believe的受词，那[the things are holding...] 就不该存在，尤其是子句中的「are」更是眼中钉 既然the things作为受词，後面顶多是受词补语，怎麽会有动词出现呢? *2,这里我不大懂，把believe後面的that补偿回来是何意? 如前所述，这里是that引导名词子句作为believe的受词， 而且的确如xi所说，通常爱省略就省略 : 那结果就是 : the things (that) we believe (that) (the things) are .... aren't : ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ : 可略 惯略 被打压 : 其实我个人还蛮满意 这样省略後剩下的句子的 XD 基本上这个句子的结构还是让我感到奇怪.. ===== 如果从dun给的连结中例句对应， They pointed out the damage which they supposed had been done by last night's storm. [2] 原句应该是 They pointed out the damage (they supposed that [the damage] had been done by last night's storm.) 句中that同样是引导名词子句作为supposed的受词，可省略 the damage是先行词，於是用关系代名词作形容词子句後，变成 They pointed out the damage which (they supposed that ____ had been done by last nights's storm.) the damage被搬到前面变which，所以原来的地方空下来 连结中是说，怕that会被误会成had been的主词，所以就省略了(但它本来就能省略@@") 故变成 They pointed out the damage which they supposed had been done by .... 但这句和系争句型The things we believe还是不大一样 (「系争」这用语不知大家可否接受) 如果改成The things which we blieve are holding ...就好多了 我想我一直对於we believe the things are holding中的 the things作为we believe的受词耿耿於怀，所以一直不能接受 前面的which(或that)可省略的说法 或说其实是我误解了 we believe the things are holding our families together中 believe的受词的确是「the things」而非「整个子句」? ===== The things (we believe (that) [the things] are holding ... ) aren't. The things (we believe (that) [which] are holding ... ) aren't. The things [which] (we believe (that) are holding ... ) aren't. The things (we believe are holding ... ) aren't. 以上四句作为我对系争句型的最终理解， 由四句的演绎过程明显可见「which」仍然是作为「主格关代」而被省略 感谢各位提供想法的版友~ -- 我好像废话太多了.. --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 111.249.129.142