Timeline for The subject of "and" in a compound statement
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 24, 2016 at 23:35 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | No – I did say I'd made adjustments (the quotes are mine) – I'd thought largely in line with what you wrote, though leaving overall ambiguities is never a good idea in my opinion. Grammatical ambiguity is often resolved by context (We got home. The front window was broken.) | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 13:05 | comment | added | thb | @EdwinAshworth: Did I say 'better style is always to remove the ambiguity'? I can't find where I said that, nor does it especially sound like something I would say -- but maybe I did say it; I don't remember. Regarding dangling elements, my position was that that's just common knowledge. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 12:55 | comment | added | thb | @EdwinAshworth: Good questions. No, I haven't authorities to cite, a fact which exposes my answer as being somewhat opinion based. On the other hand, an answer to what constitutes good English writing will always be somewhat opinion based, strictly speaking: we rely on the consensus of good writers. This particular answer of mine does not cite good writers, but if you have citations, feel free to add them. | |
| Apr 8, 2016 at 15:36 | comment | added | Edwin Ashworth | A very balanced answer. Could you possibly add authorities for 'good English style does not happily accommodate grammatical ambiguity', 'better style is always to remove the ambiguity' and 'get back to work in structures like this is a dangling element, and usual English convention is to fix dangling elements'? [adjusted] | |
| Jul 12, 2013 at 18:19 | history | edited | thb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 characters in body
|
| Jul 12, 2013 at 14:44 | history | answered | thb | CC BY-SA 3.0 |