12

Take the following sentences for example:

  1. Horror movies can be scary and can lead to nightmares.

  2. Horror movies can be scary and lead to nightmares.

Is the second sentence simply a more concise version of the first, or does it change the meaning? I.e., does the first sentence suggest that horror movies can both be scary and lead to nightmares, while the second sentence suggests that horror movies can lead to nightmares as a direct result of them being scary? The difference may seem minute, but I think it's notable enough.

I am training to be a proofreader and struggling with editing for concision while not changing the original meaning of the text.

Improve this question
10
  • 4
    Leaving out the repeated verb implies the connection. Repeating it means you need it to separate the bits: Movies can be scary and can still be very entertaining.
    – Yosef Baskin
    Commented Jul 9, 2023 at 22:12
  • 6
    If it were redundant we could never have had the Can-Can!
    – Hot Licks
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 2:50
  • 18
    I can can-can and I can can vegetables, but I can't can-can and can vegetables.
    – Especially Lime
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 8:28
  • 7
    There's the third reading: (1) 'Horror movies [can be scary] and [can lead to nightmares].' // (2) 'Horror movies can [be scary and lead to nightmares].' // (3) 'Horror movies [can be scary] and [they lead to nightmares].' (This because both base form and 3rd person plural simple present of 'lead' are lead.)
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 13:53
  • 4
    @EspeciallyLime Anyone who can can-can can can, can they not?
    – rydwolf
    Commented Jul 12, 2023 at 3:18

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
32

Both statements are fine, but there is a slight difference in nuance and emphasis.

If you repeat can, it can imply that you are considering the two negative impacts of horror movies separately, as two distinct, or independent consequences.

When you don't repeat can, it can imply that you are fusing the two consequences into one, as if the two go hand in hand, being interdependent.

However, this distinction may not be made in the author's mind, and the repetition or non-repetition of can may be a matter of mere stylistic choice. Some like to avoid repetition, whilst others prefer repetition for the rhythm and symmetry it gives to the sentence.

Improve this answer
9
  • 20
    It's a slightly perverse interpretation, but OP's version 2 (without repeating can) could be understood as Horror movies can be scary and are known to lead to nightmares (i.e. - the "tentativeness" of can only applies to the initial clause; the second one could be an outright assertion of fact).
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 0:48
  • It's not perverse if you flip the clauses - I am hungry and can be tempted by a nice sandwich.
    – Cong Chen
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 19:38
  • 2
    @trlkly: Hmm. I think that would just mark you out as a non-native Anglophone - it wouldn't meaningfully reduce any potential ambiguity.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Jul 11, 2023 at 11:44
  • 2
    @FumbleFingers I think this might be a regional thing, because I would understand trlkly's usage and it wouldn't make me think they're not a native speaker.
    – Nonny Moose
    Commented Jul 11, 2023 at 16:23
  • 2
    @FumbleFingers I'm a native speaker.To me, using the "or" intuitively makes it where you cannot parse it as "Horror movies lead to nightmares." f I had to guess why, I would say that saying A or B makes B optional, and thus functions similarly to including the word "can." That said, I'd also argue that "or" makes implies they are less connected than "and" : "Horror movies can be scary and lead to nightmares" clearly implies that said nightmares are caused by being scary. "Horror movies can be scary and can lead to nightmares" is less connected, but still implies a relationship.
    – trlkly
    Commented Jul 11, 2023 at 19:58
9

Consider the below. Can you see how the second and third options have the same syntax but mean two very different things? For clarity, stick with the two cans in the first option.

Horror movies:
• can be scary
• can lead to nightmares

Horror movies can:
• be scary
• lead to nightmares

Horror movies:
• can be scary
• lead to nightmares

Improve this answer
8
  • 6
    The third interpretation is not what a typical native speaker will understand the sentence to mean. To convey that meaning, you need to say: Horror movies can be scary and will lead to nightmares.
    – Peter Shor
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 12:01
  • 3
    @PeterShor I think that's mainly because of the context, since most know that nightmares are related to being scared. Consider "Driving too fast can be scary and lead to accidents" -- I think many would interpret this in the third way.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 14:51
  • 7
    @Barmar: "Driving too fast can be scary and lead to accidents" can only be interpreted in the first two ways. To interpret it in the third way, you would need to write "Driving too fast can be scary and leads to accidents."
    – Peter Shor
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 15:08
  • 1
    Good point, I wasn't thinking about the conjugation.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 15:18
  • 4
    I agree, it's ambiguous. And there's a third reading possible: In "Petrol can catch fire and cause burns", the two things petrol can do are not independent, there is an implication that the second effect will happen only if the first happens. A second "can" would suggest that petrol can cause burns even if it does not catch fire.
    – Michael Kay
    Commented Jul 10, 2023 at 15:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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