Is this example correct? (omitting subject in compound sentence)
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Had an argument with my colleague regarding the example from "Advanced Grammar in Use" by Martin Hewings:
In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and
shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
To me it sounds a bit fancy, but clear and grammatically correct. However, my colleague insists that it should be corrected in one of these ways:
- In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and he shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
- In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and yet shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
- Morneau will have been acting for 50 years in two years time, and shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
So do you think if it's correct grammatically and stylistically? Can someone think of similar sentences, some real life examples?
independent-clauses compound-sentences subject-drop
asked 1 hour ago
Yuriy Batsura
61
New contributor
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Had an argument with my colleague regarding the example from "Advanced Grammar in Use" by Martin Hewings:
In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and
shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
To me it sounds a bit fancy, but clear and grammatically correct. However, my colleague insists that it should be corrected in one of these ways:
- In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and he shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
- In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and yet shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
- Morneau will have been acting for 50 years in two years time, and shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
So do you think if it's correct grammatically and stylistically? Can someone think of similar sentences, some real life examples?
independent-clauses compound-sentences subject-drop
asked 1 hour ago
Yuriy Batsura
61
New contributor
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It is a bit fancy, but it's perfectly grammatical, an example of what's called Conjunction Reduction, which deletes unnecessarily repeated constituents of conjoined sentences. The comma, btw, indicates an intonation curve that effectively substitutes for the subject, by announcing a new clause continuing the same subject.
– John Lawler
7 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Had an argument with my colleague regarding the example from "Advanced Grammar in Use" by Martin Hewings:
In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and
shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
To me it sounds a bit fancy, but clear and grammatically correct. However, my colleague insists that it should be corrected in one of these ways:
- In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and he shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
- In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and yet shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
- Morneau will have been acting for 50 years in two years time, and shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
So do you think if it's correct grammatically and stylistically? Can someone think of similar sentences, some real life examples?
independent-clauses compound-sentences subject-drop
asked 1 hour ago
Yuriy Batsura
61
New contributor
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Had an argument with my colleague regarding the example from "Advanced Grammar in Use" by Martin Hewings:
In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and
shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
To me it sounds a bit fancy, but clear and grammatically correct. However, my colleague insists that it should be corrected in one of these ways:
- In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and he shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
- In two years time Morneau will have been acting for 50 years, and yet shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
- Morneau will have been acting for 50 years in two years time, and shows no signs of retiring from the theatre.
So do you think if it's correct grammatically and stylistically? Can someone think of similar sentences, some real life examples?
independent-clauses compound-sentences subject-drop
independent-clauses compound-sentences subject-drop
asked 1 hour ago
Yuriy Batsura
61
New contributor
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Yuriy Batsura
61
New contributor
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Yuriy Batsura
61
New contributor
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Yuriy Batsura
61
asked 1 hour ago
Yuriy Batsura
61
61
New contributor
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It is a bit fancy, but it's perfectly grammatical, an example of what's called Conjunction Reduction, which deletes unnecessarily repeated constituents of conjoined sentences. The comma, btw, indicates an intonation curve that effectively substitutes for the subject, by announcing a new clause continuing the same subject.
– John Lawler
7 mins ago
add a comment |
It is a bit fancy, but it's perfectly grammatical, an example of what's called Conjunction Reduction, which deletes unnecessarily repeated constituents of conjoined sentences. The comma, btw, indicates an intonation curve that effectively substitutes for the subject, by announcing a new clause continuing the same subject.
– John Lawler
7 mins ago
It is a bit fancy, but it's perfectly grammatical, an example of what's called Conjunction Reduction, which deletes unnecessarily repeated constituents of conjoined sentences. The comma, btw, indicates an intonation curve that effectively substitutes for the subject, by announcing a new clause continuing the same subject.
– John Lawler
7 mins ago
It is a bit fancy, but it's perfectly grammatical, an example of what's called Conjunction Reduction, which deletes unnecessarily repeated constituents of conjoined sentences. The comma, btw, indicates an intonation curve that effectively substitutes for the subject, by announcing a new clause continuing the same subject.
– John Lawler
7 mins ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The bare bones of your sentence are:
Morneau | will have been acting and shows
It is not a compound sentence, i.e., with two independent clauses, but a simple sentence with one subject and a compound verb joined by and. By the rules of traditional grammar, the comma should not be there. Or you may add the pronoun he to produce the second independent clause, as your friend suggests, but doing so merely to satisfy a comma rule doesn’t seem especially satisfactory either: there is no ambiguity as to who the subject of shows is. So why bother?
The other suggestions are merely stylistic, but still don’t deal with the comma problem. Adding a contrastive, either and yet or just yet as a conjunction, changes the meaning of the sentence. Sticking in two years time at the end of the clause merely makes the future perfect sound clumsy, so it’s hardly an improvement.
In longer sentences,however, especially as here where the verbs are different tenses, even the best writers toss in a comma. The best solution, then, would be either toss the comma or leave the sentence as is.
answered 24 mins ago
KarlG
18.8k52753
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The bare bones of your sentence are:
Morneau | will have been acting and shows
It is not a compound sentence, i.e., with two independent clauses, but a simple sentence with one subject and a compound verb joined by and. By the rules of traditional grammar, the comma should not be there. Or you may add the pronoun he to produce the second independent clause, as your friend suggests, but doing so merely to satisfy a comma rule doesn’t seem especially satisfactory either: there is no ambiguity as to who the subject of shows is. So why bother?
The other suggestions are merely stylistic, but still don’t deal with the comma problem. Adding a contrastive, either and yet or just yet as a conjunction, changes the meaning of the sentence. Sticking in two years time at the end of the clause merely makes the future perfect sound clumsy, so it’s hardly an improvement.
In longer sentences,however, especially as here where the verbs are different tenses, even the best writers toss in a comma. The best solution, then, would be either toss the comma or leave the sentence as is.
answered 24 mins ago
KarlG
18.8k52753
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The bare bones of your sentence are:
Morneau | will have been acting and shows
It is not a compound sentence, i.e., with two independent clauses, but a simple sentence with one subject and a compound verb joined by and. By the rules of traditional grammar, the comma should not be there. Or you may add the pronoun he to produce the second independent clause, as your friend suggests, but doing so merely to satisfy a comma rule doesn’t seem especially satisfactory either: there is no ambiguity as to who the subject of shows is. So why bother?
The other suggestions are merely stylistic, but still don’t deal with the comma problem. Adding a contrastive, either and yet or just yet as a conjunction, changes the meaning of the sentence. Sticking in two years time at the end of the clause merely makes the future perfect sound clumsy, so it’s hardly an improvement.
In longer sentences,however, especially as here where the verbs are different tenses, even the best writers toss in a comma. The best solution, then, would be either toss the comma or leave the sentence as is.
answered 24 mins ago
KarlG
18.8k52753
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The bare bones of your sentence are:
Morneau | will have been acting and shows
It is not a compound sentence, i.e., with two independent clauses, but a simple sentence with one subject and a compound verb joined by and. By the rules of traditional grammar, the comma should not be there. Or you may add the pronoun he to produce the second independent clause, as your friend suggests, but doing so merely to satisfy a comma rule doesn’t seem especially satisfactory either: there is no ambiguity as to who the subject of shows is. So why bother?
The other suggestions are merely stylistic, but still don’t deal with the comma problem. Adding a contrastive, either and yet or just yet as a conjunction, changes the meaning of the sentence. Sticking in two years time at the end of the clause merely makes the future perfect sound clumsy, so it’s hardly an improvement.
In longer sentences,however, especially as here where the verbs are different tenses, even the best writers toss in a comma. The best solution, then, would be either toss the comma or leave the sentence as is.
answered 24 mins ago
KarlG
18.8k52753
The bare bones of your sentence are:
Morneau | will have been acting and shows
It is not a compound sentence, i.e., with two independent clauses, but a simple sentence with one subject and a compound verb joined by and. By the rules of traditional grammar, the comma should not be there. Or you may add the pronoun he to produce the second independent clause, as your friend suggests, but doing so merely to satisfy a comma rule doesn’t seem especially satisfactory either: there is no ambiguity as to who the subject of shows is. So why bother?
The other suggestions are merely stylistic, but still don’t deal with the comma problem. Adding a contrastive, either and yet or just yet as a conjunction, changes the meaning of the sentence. Sticking in two years time at the end of the clause merely makes the future perfect sound clumsy, so it’s hardly an improvement.
In longer sentences,however, especially as here where the verbs are different tenses, even the best writers toss in a comma. The best solution, then, would be either toss the comma or leave the sentence as is.
answered 24 mins ago
KarlG
18.8k52753
answered 24 mins ago
KarlG
18.8k52753
answered 24 mins ago
KarlG
18.8k52753
answered 24 mins ago
KarlG
18.8k52753
18.8k52753
add a comment |
add a comment |
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Yuriy Batsura is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f476806%2fis-this-example-correct-omitting-subject-in-compound-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It is a bit fancy, but it's perfectly grammatical, an example of what's called Conjunction Reduction, which deletes unnecessarily repeated constituents of conjoined sentences. The comma, btw, indicates an intonation curve that effectively substitutes for the subject, by announcing a new clause continuing the same subject.
– John Lawler
7 mins ago