The Revolution only ended with the death of the leader, Ji Tai, after whom, Pol Zara, took over the leadership in 1978.

Is this sentence grammatically correct?

closed as off-topic by Lawrence, Jason Bassford, Cascabel, jimm101, Mark Beadles Jan 16 at 21:06

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Lawrence, Cascabel, jimm101
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    If you take out the parts set off by commas, does the sentence still make sense? – The Photon Jan 10 at 23:47
  • No. What are you getting at? – user585380 Jan 10 at 23:58
  • If the revolution ended after the death of Ji Tai, how can it (something which no longer exists) have been taken over by Pol Zara? Many things are wrong with this sentence, not least of all the parenthetical use of Pol Zara which is actually essential to the sentence. – Jason Bassford Jan 11 at 0:10
  • 3
    @user585380, because it's a clue that you shouldn't use commas in one of the two cases. – The Photon Jan 11 at 0:11
  • 2
    But what did Ji Tai lead? The revolution or the government? The quote says "the leader". – Weather Vane Jan 11 at 0:13

The Revolution only ended with the death of the leader, Ji Tai, after whom Pol Zara took over the leadership in 1978.

Take out the commas before and after Pol Zara and this looks and sounds right. Ji Tai gets commas because he substitutes the phrase "the leader", but Pol Zara does not because he does not substitute anything.

As for the meaning, I assumed that after the revolution had ended with said death, Zara, related or not, came under leadership whether the revolution had succeeded or not. I'm assuming it had not.

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