0

Is it right to combine the three clauses this way? Is the verb 'has' necessary for the 2nd and 3rd clauses?

England have decided to drop a batsman who has scored some memorable Test centuries against all leading teams, has clearly been their best ever ODI player and has won a Man-of-the-Series award in England’s only ICC winning tournament: the T20 World Cup in 2010.

Wouldn't it be fine to just write

England have decided to drop a batsman who has scored some memorable Test centuries against all leading teams, clearly been their best ever ODI player and won a Man-of-the-Series award in England’s only ICC winning tournament: the T20 World Cup in 2010.

  • 1
    "Is there anything wrong with this?" questions don't particularly contribute to the site. Identify what it is about the sentence that you are concerned with and try to provide a minimal example without any extraneous elements. Make the question generic so others can benefit from it if that have the same problem. – smithkm Mar 17 '14 at 19:27
  • Altered accordingly. I hope it is fine now. – user64507 Mar 17 '14 at 19:32
2

You may certainly drop the repeated hases, but the conjoined clauses are all pretty long: 9, 7 and 19 words. That’s a substantial amount of information to buffer from one ellipsis to the next. Moreover, the second clause is introduced with an adverb, not a participle, so it is not immediately obvious that it is structured in parallel with the first clause.

And a text like this is probably addressed to readers who ordinarily attend less closely than they would to, say, a tightly reasoned philosophical argument or a detailed technical exposition. Repeating the head verb helps them keep track of how the sentence is structured and where they are in it.

Less is often more, but not always.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy