Take a look at this:

By the way, I marked (the tag that includes) position 2854 (in the code that the tag is inside).

Is it okay to use a couple of clauses that are dependent of each others like this (in order to convey the right meaning)?

  • You seem to have many questions about exotic use of parentheses. Beware that long, complex sentence structure will hardly make for easy and enjoyable reading! – F'x May 13 '11 at 14:30
  • @F'x True. But that exotic use is ... exotic. It adds a certain touch, or flavor, to the sentence. ^^ It's not something I use (or intend to use) often, though. – Shathur May 13 '11 at 14:41

It is not necessary (i.e., you can have parentheses with unrelated content in the same sentence), but it would be generally understood, as long as the structure of the sentence is not too long or complicated (otherwise people will start to get lost). It is typically used for indicating alternatives, such as:

I was quite surprised by the intense heat in Rio (and Sao Paulo too), as it can reach 45°C easily (50°C in Sao Paulo).

| improve this answer | |
  • In the example you give here, there's no need for the first clause to understand the second. What if I write a second clause that doesn't make sense without the first one? Of course, it's a risk involved, but I figure it could be useful in some extraordinary cases. – Shathur May 13 '11 at 14:43

As long as the sentence reads correctly when all material in parentheses is removed, I think it's fine. I'm not aware of any rule that says that one parenthetical phrase cannot refer to another.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.