0

'Because my legs haven't disabled me, if anything they've enabled me.'

It seems to me that there is something omitted. Because as far as I know, it needs a subject and a verb after 'if', but there is no verb after it. Could anyone explain this structure?

  • 2
    'Because it's not raining, it's sunny' is false reasoning. // Grammatically, there's not much wrong. Think of it as two sentence fragments. The critic who criticised my rather long legs was wrong. Because my legs haven't disabled me. If anything, they've enabled me. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 14 '16 at 6:16
1

Because my legs haven't disabled me, if anything they've enabled me.

The sentence as it stands it either entirely ungrammatical or else it adopts the colloquialism of starting a new sentence with "because" that had a pretty long statement preceding it.

Example of this construction:

I don't need to listen to my parents. Because I'm a 15-year-old knowitall.

It's often seen in editorials, but it's not proper.

Also, you have two separate thoughts in play. Since1 they are closely related, this type of construction usually has a semicolon separating them.

My legs haven't disabled me; if anything, they've enabled me.


1 I was tempted to use "because" here, though it's grammatically distinct from the because I mentioned above.

0

"Because" is unnecessary and makes this sentence sound awkward. Also, there is a verb in the "if phrase" - "enabled." A comma after "anything" would certainly add clarity. Or, a semicolon after the first "me."

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.