关于独立主格和非限定性定语的一个小问题

HenriWilligS

好像最近被这个有点搞混了。。。
比如：

Until the passage of the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act in 1982, a first-time charge of copyright infringement was merely a misdemeanor charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were subject to relatively small penalties.
A. charge, federal prosecutors being unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
B. charge, with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being
C. charge, federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, while offenders were
D. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely in pursuing criminal copyright infringers and offenders being
E. charge; therefore, federal prosecutors were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, and offenders were

这道题目，答案没有问题，主要是我想问一下这儿的B选项的 “with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers”，按照prep的解释，这个结构是定语结构，非限定性修饰前面的名词，因为独立主格是没有with+n+定从的形式的，但是这儿如果我把定从的"who were"去掉之后，改成“with federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers”，怎么把它和独立主格区别啊？我觉得和独立主格完全一样的感觉啊~

HenriWilligS

我个人的理解是：
with+n+定从(如果定语从句是which+be)的话，去掉which+be之后，就是一个独立主格结构啊？

ballackahn

b选项里的with只是一个介宾结构 不是独立主格

buaagonggan

with federal prosecutors unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers是独立主格吧。
with federal prosecutors who were unlikely to pursue criminal copyright infringers, offenders being主干是with federal prosecutors就不是独立主格了。不能抽调who were 理解这个成分语法结构的。
好多结构其实表达意思都是一样的，像是鹤鹤写的那个who were抽调以后，意思是差不多的（但是强调的不一样，独立主格强调unlikely的这个状态，后面那句强调with prosecutors的这个事实），但是语法结构不一样啦。