主题：【原创】翻译讨论 -- 人间树
The first two-thirds of the book, therefore, are taken up with separate treatments of the forms of social theory established by Marx, Durkheim and Weber.
——Capitalism and Modern Social Theory: An Analysis of the Writings of Marx, Durkheim and Max Weber
你来告诉我，established by Marx, Durkheim and Weber 修饰的是
treatments ，forms，还是social theory？
正如那个网页所说，我认为alarmed 修饰的是Tom, 不是句子，起到的作用不是状语。
我觉得我在这一系列问题上已经很谨慎了，另外也确实所知有限。那个supported的问题，别人也有看法，你可以和他们再讨论讨论，如果你愿意的话。
Although painfully wounded in the hand, he remained on the field to the end of the battle, rendering valuable assistance.
Although twice wounded in the hand, he did not stop for first aid but continued on, discarding rifle and firing a pistol.
Severely wounded in the hand, he managed to bail out over Frankfurt.
Jewish Fast for Gaza is a collective act of conscience led by rabbis and other Jews but supported by Christians, Muslims, and a wide diversity of other people alarmed by the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Tom nervously watched the woman, alarmed by her silence.
Thousands of people injured by faulty car parts are about to lose their right to sue.
Tom cried out for help,injured by a knife-wielding man.
何时定语，何时状语（逗号形式）应该很明显了。
我坚持认为alarmed修饰的是Tom, 而只要是修饰名词／代词，那么就不是状语，因为根据定义，状语不可能修饰名词。至于alarmed是否是定语，这个话我没有说，在英语语法中到底称为什么，我不知道。
但如果你坚持认为alarmed修饰的是前面的句子，那我们只能谁也说服不了谁了。在这种情况下，还是算了吧，不是什么大不了的问题。
总的来讲，这一系列讨论至少给我还是又不少启发的，谢谢树老兄引入这个话题并主导这场讨论。
“，alarmed......”是状语，表明watch的结果或伴随状态，应该不是定语。若用做定语的话，这个句子必须这样翻：因该女子的沉默而惊恐的Tom紧张地看着她。
但我们返回去看英文原文，应该是：Tom紧张地看着那个女子，为她的沉默感到惊恐。
所以，从语法的角度来说，对supported的理解我被他说服了。
注：没注意到九霄环佩:关于分词的用法，加逗号应该是可以的，效果也有所不同里已经讲过这些内容了。删除。
如果你这么翻译，就是把alarmed引导的短语作为一个“限定性的修饰成分”，实际上一种误译。修饰成分也可以是非限定性（non-defining）的，还记得定语从句有限定性定语从句和非限定性定语从句吧，道理是一样的。
这么翻译应该是妥当的，但是这并不意味着后面的短语起状语的作用。
状语修饰的是形容词性或动词性的成分，即使修饰句子那修饰的核心也在谓语，万不可修饰名词性的成分，比如主语和宾语。那个例子中alarmed无疑修饰Tom，那个网页上也是这么说的，所以不管从语法上叫作什么，都不会叫作状语。
这个例子其实很清楚，没有什么ambiguity.
原本以为自己的解读(supported by的修饰对象an understanding)更合理，再想想也未必，反而觉得方某/嘉木/九霄的合理性并不比我少。
纯粹扣语法，supported by似乎不该去修饰最远的scientific conclusions. 这也是我从一开始就否定方说的原因。
不过仔细想来，英语的严谨程度，或者说歧义最小化方面，一直都很不好，甚至不如思维缜密下笔严谨的人书写的汉语，与德语更不能比。所以即使是科学界先贤，用英语写作恐亦不免弄出歧义的句子来。更何况波普尔是奥地利人，母语是德语，所以我们看到的这个英语版本无疑是个译本，这一点就愈发令我觉得我所质疑的那段话大有问题。(会不会是德语里有个近似observation的词，但这个词在德语中存在其他意思 而在英语中却没有这个意思，如果是这样，那么直接把这个词搬到英语中很显然就是错误的)
既然英语语法的严谨性不值得恭维，那么当遇到存在歧义的英语行文时，恐怕就不能太过机械地执着于语法，而要多依靠逻辑和语感。
楼主反对supported by修饰scentific conclusions的理由似乎是：scentific conclusions包括两大类，well-established 与 not well-established. 但我觉得这不足以否定方某的理解。为什么呢？因为叫真儿来说，无论是well-establshed sc 还是not well-established sc，都会在不同程度上获得实验、观察，和模型的支持，只不过支持程度存在差异而已。既然如此，说supported by是修饰scentific conclusions也就未尝不可了。
把原文里“an understanding of”去掉，看看有什么差异。我的意见，其并非可有可无，而恰恰是原作者表达严谨之处。
再说仔细一点，我这样理解：“scientific conclusions”是“an understanding of basic laws”的summary；“supported by...”修饰“an understanding of basic laws”，隐含的，从语义逻辑的角度，也就是修饰“scientific conclusions”。
If so, scientists devise another round of experiments — and then publish their results. Now other scientists have at the theory, rechecking every bit of the work. Only after all this can the concept, thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned and re-examined, gain the status of a “well-established theory” or be spoken of as “fact.”
Bye-bye, icebergs: 255 scientists say we’re slowly toasting our own planet
从这段原文改写看，方译正确。
其实当我说那是状语的时候，纯粹出于直感，我只是想用最省事的方法表达那两种用法的不同。（最近换了输入法，打字很痛苦。）
不过，搜索到一个网页，倒把我的观点都说出来了。
我还发现一些老外也在争论这个问题，怎么命名是小事，但我所分辨的两种情况不可互易应该没问题。
Past Participle used as Adverbial — 过去分词作状语
过去分词作状语修饰谓语，大多说明动作发生的背景或情况，表示时间、条件、原因、伴随情况等。一般说来，这一结构的逻辑主语是主句的主语。
分词状语 修饰谓语 修饰句子
分词/分词短语 ， 主语 + 谓语动词 + ……
--------------------------------------------à-----------------------------------------á
表示动作发生的背景或情况，表示时间、条件、原因、结果、让步或伴随情况
1．Confused （表原因）by the stones flying at them from all sides, the boys ran into the building.
Separated at birth, the twins do not know each other.
2．Once seen (表时间), it can never be forgotten. Questioned about the murder, he came tense.
3．Given (表条件) more water, the fish couldn’t die.
Compared with you, we still have a long way to go.
4．Even though defeated (表让步) again, the scientist didn’t give up.
5. Seen (表方式) from a spaceship, the earth looks like a blue green white ball.
6．She walked out of the house, followed (表伴随) by her little daughter.
He turned away disappointed.
连词加分词作状语
有时分词可以用连词加以强调。连词while常接现在分词；when接现在分词或过去分词均可；once, if, though, although, even if, even though, unless, than, as (像)等后面只能接过去分词。
When traveling, you should take care of yourself. When told of the news, she got very excited.
Don’t reach sideway while standing on a ladder. I won’t go to the party unless invited.
I wonder why he didn’t do the experiment as told to. Though surrounded, they didn’t give up.
现在分词与过去分词作状语时需要注意的事项：
1） 过去分词或现在分词作状语的时候，它的逻辑主语通常应是句子的主语。
l 从山顶上看，这座城市非常美丽。
状语从句作状语 （从句和主句可以有不同的主语）
If you see from the hill, the city is beautiful. When you see from the hill, the city is beautiful.
过去分词短语作状语
Seen from the hill, the city is beautiful. Seeing from the hill, you can see the city is beautiful.
l 把水加热到100度，谁就沸腾了。
状语从句作状语
If/When it is heated to 100℃, water will boil. (从句与主句的主语一致)
If/When we heat it to 100℃, water will boil. (从句与主句的主语不同)
过去分词短语作状语
Heated to 100℃, water will boil.
Heated to 100℃, water boils. (讲述的是自然现象)
该章原是单篇论文
A NOTE ON BERKELEY AS PRECURSOR OF MACH
The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1953 IV(13):26-36; doi:10.1093/bjps/IV.13.26
1953 by British Society for the Philosophy of Science
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
第三段，举三种例子说明何为“well-established theories”，用以佐证climate change theory的可靠性，但出于严谨，同时指明即便说是“well-established”，也存在谬误的可能（即scientific conclusion始终伴有某种不确定性）。我们可以看出使得一个theory成为“well-established”的关键在于“compelling （comprehensive, consistent， objective） scientific evidence”，而不仅仅是该理论是否tested, questioned, and examined。
---------------------------
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
...................
第四段，前三段立论，这一段反驳，并例举一些关于气候变化的 fundamental conclusions，用以表明目前的挑战并未能改变这些结论“well-established”的地位。其反驳的逻辑紧扣其关于scientific conclusions总是具有不确定性的论述，承认可能有的谬误，非常严谨。
这里，我必须纠正我之前关于evidence的意见，之前我认为“an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence”中的“evidence”应解为“迹象”，现结合第三段的论述来读，还是必须解释为“证据”，即科学家通过实验、观察、模拟所获得的用以证明气候变化的各种证据。
-----------------------------
Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.
We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
最后两段，呼吁行动，没有直接说的是呼吁对科学家和科学的信任。
现在回到这封信的标题，Climate Change and the Integrity of Science，这封信不仅仅是科学界就气候变暖问题的一次表态，其更是科学界面对居心叵测的一些攻击时，通过解释scientific conclusions，well-established theories和basic laws三者之间的关系，来澄清大众对科学的一些误解，从而为科学和科学家正名，以维护其信誉。
这封信正如善人兄所说，试图说明，科学家提出conclusion或theory，并努力通过实验、观察、模拟去为其寻找证据支持，但即便如此也只是“试图去理解，逼近basic laws”,conclusion或theory本身永远都伴有不确定性，永远不能获得basic laws那种绝对性的地位，所以公众必须容忍科学存在一定的误差，同时对科学抱有信心，因为scientific process为不断纠正科学中的误差，为人类的认识不断趋近basic laws提供了可能。
----因此，虽然我对“supported.......”的理解从语法角度可能一无是处，但是从语义的角度来说，我还是比较倾向于其用以修饰scientific conclusions。
我好担心你们俩吵起来，我是不是很杞人？
我还是觉得叫作状语（如果这个状语对应英语的adverbial modifier的话）不合适，你找的也不是多权威的英语语法资料，显得很有些中国特色，我倒不是不相信，而只是存个疑。但我也强调了关键是什么，关键是修饰谁。
说实话，你一开头区别状语、定语，和我的思维方式很不同，如果我分析中文语法，我会强调这个定语、状语，但是如果我分析英语，我会用一些其它的术语，比如分词、从句、修饰等等。汉语和英语语法有相同点，也有不同点。如果非要我说那是什么，我会说“non-defining modifier”, 也许可以说“non-defining adjective modifier"，这个东西可以起补充说明的作用，表示某种伴随的状态，原因，条件等等，都不是不可以，即使表示状态也并不意味着是状语（adverbial modifier）.按照你的说法，非限定性定语从句也可以表示伴随的状态，那也成状语了。
如果较真，那就应该去查牛津语法辞典和相关书籍，看看英语语法里面对应“状语”的词条是什么，我估计是"adverbial modifier", 然后再看看它的定义是什么，然后再联系具体的例子。
alarmed 修饰Tom, supported如果前面加逗号那就可以修饰conclusion, 我觉得这两种情况没有本质区别，如果你说alarmed作状语，那么我就不可以说",supported"作状语了？不可以表示伴随或者条件？
我也早说过，我不是语法专家，所知不多。只能说到这一步了，也许我说的不对。互相作参考吧。