gcgc
New member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2016
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Chinese
- Home Country
- Taiwan
- Current Location
- Taiwan
Hi Teachers,
Could you help me for the following question?
1. The red sentence is an noun clause, and the green one is an adjective clause. Does the adjective clause describe the whole noun clause or "Australian rock art"? Is there any exception that an adjective clause describes the closest noun when we have a noun clause in front of the adjective clause( like this case. an adjective clause describes "Australian rock art") ?
2. The brown sentence is also an adjective clause. However, I do not know why it uses "were" instead of "was" because I think that
all adjective clauses describe nouns in front of the "of" only. For example, for the sentence I mentioned, this adjective clause should have described "the archaeological profile" not "those sites". From the sentence, it uses "were". As a result, I guess this adjective clause refers to "those sites". However, are there any rules that an adjective clause always describe the noun in front of the "of"?
I hope you can understand my questions. I am so sorry that I am a learner that may confuse you.
(this paragraph is captured from the TOEFL)
In the 1970s when the study of Australian archaeology was in an exciting phase of development, with the great antiquity of rock art becoming clear. Lesley Maynard, the archaeologist who coined the phrase “Panaramitee style,” suggested that a sequence could be determined for Australian rock art, in which a geometric style gave way to a simple figurative style (outlines of figures and animals), followed by a range of complex figurative styles that, unlike the pan-Australian geometric tradition, tended to much greater regional diversity. While accepting that this sequence fits the archaeological profile of those sites, which were occupied continuously over many thousands of years a number of writers have warned that the underlying assumption of such a sequence—a development from the simple and the geometric to the complex and naturalistic—obscures the cultural continuities in Aboriginal Australia, in which geometric symbolism remains fundamentally important. In this context the simplicity of a geometric motif may be more apparent than real. Motifs of seeming simplicity can encode complex meanings in Aboriginal Australia. And has not twentieth-century art shown that naturalism does not necessarily follow abstraction in some kind of predetermine sequence?
Could you help me for the following question?
1. The red sentence is an noun clause, and the green one is an adjective clause. Does the adjective clause describe the whole noun clause or "Australian rock art"? Is there any exception that an adjective clause describes the closest noun when we have a noun clause in front of the adjective clause( like this case. an adjective clause describes "Australian rock art") ?
2. The brown sentence is also an adjective clause. However, I do not know why it uses "were" instead of "was" because I think that
all adjective clauses describe nouns in front of the "of" only. For example, for the sentence I mentioned, this adjective clause should have described "the archaeological profile" not "those sites". From the sentence, it uses "were". As a result, I guess this adjective clause refers to "those sites". However, are there any rules that an adjective clause always describe the noun in front of the "of"?
I hope you can understand my questions. I am so sorry that I am a learner that may confuse you.
(this paragraph is captured from the TOEFL)
In the 1970s when the study of Australian archaeology was in an exciting phase of development, with the great antiquity of rock art becoming clear. Lesley Maynard, the archaeologist who coined the phrase “Panaramitee style,” suggested that a sequence could be determined for Australian rock art, in which a geometric style gave way to a simple figurative style (outlines of figures and animals), followed by a range of complex figurative styles that, unlike the pan-Australian geometric tradition, tended to much greater regional diversity. While accepting that this sequence fits the archaeological profile of those sites, which were occupied continuously over many thousands of years a number of writers have warned that the underlying assumption of such a sequence—a development from the simple and the geometric to the complex and naturalistic—obscures the cultural continuities in Aboriginal Australia, in which geometric symbolism remains fundamentally important. In this context the simplicity of a geometric motif may be more apparent than real. Motifs of seeming simplicity can encode complex meanings in Aboriginal Australia. And has not twentieth-century art shown that naturalism does not necessarily follow abstraction in some kind of predetermine sequence?
