Which one of the two sentences is grammatically correct and why?

Forums: Grammar, English, Esl, Efl, Thank You For Your Help
Email this Topic • Print this Page

1) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans. Because they will attack without warning.
2) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans. They will attack without warning.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 9 • Views: 3,319 • Replies: 28
Topic Closed

[+3] - Bennet - 02/24/2013[color=#BF0000]Both sentences in each option are grammatically correct in that they form complete sentences. But technically, the period looses the connection between the two clauses in both...

@nhelen,

Quote:

1) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans, because they will attack without warning.

A better choice is to place a comma before the word because and make it one sentence. The word phrase "because they will attack without warning" is better not to stand alone.

Correct

Quote:

2) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans. They will attack without warning.

2 Replies

@nhelen,

Both sentences in each option are grammatically correct in that they form complete sentences.
But technically, the period looses the connection between the two clauses in both cases. It would be more correct to write:
1) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans because they will attack without warning.
2) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans; they will attack without warning.

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Quote:

Quote:
1) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans, because they will attack without warning.

A better choice is to place a comma before the word "because"

Rag forgive me but I strongly disagree. I cannot cite a grammatical rule to support this assertion but as an erstwhile author I feel it just somehow grates

2 Replies

@nhelen,

Quote:

1) Great white sharks are…...

I'd say "The great white shark is…"

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

I think it can pass. Seeing that he used a subordinate conjunction to make the independent clause subordinate to the other, and joined the independent clause and dependent clause with a comma, he hasn't committed a comma splice.

3 Replies

@dalehileman,

I understand your concern about my use of the comma. This preference is my own taste or preference in this case... about putting a comma there because I'm semi-comatose.

Seriously, when I speak the phrase, I hear my voice go down in tone or inflection when I say the phrase - hence my preference for the comma there.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

I offer this critique back: there is no need to make it singular: "" Great White sharks are" is acceptable.

0 Replies

@Bennet,

Quote:

, he hasn't committed a comma splice.

Yes, no, Ben, of course I didn't say he had

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Quote:

my own taste or preference in this case...

Of course Rag, it's perfectly okay

Quote:

" Great White sharks are" is acceptable.

Yes, yes, of course

Quote:

when I speak the phrase, I hear my voice go down in tone or inflection

Not me. Interesting, we ought to think about why

Quote:

about putting a comma there because I'm semi-comatose.

Rag you've made my day

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

This reminds me of something I saw in the rest-room at the pub which I recently visited:
"We aim to please, your aim helps."

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Two days

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Quote:

Correct
Quote:
2) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans. They will attack without warning.

Sneaky guy, Ragman. Will you stop at nothing in your attempts to deceive?

0 Replies

@nhelen,

Quote:

1) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans. Because they will attack without warning.
2) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans. They will attack without warning.

Both are grammatically correct, nhelen.

The first sounds a little odd out of context. But when there is context, it's not at all odd.

A: Great white sharks are dangerous to humans. [gets, for example, a roll of the eyes from someone else] Because they will attack without warning.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

2) Great white sharks are dangerous to humans. They will attack without warning….grammatically correct…….

Well I wonder. In this particular case it's pretty obvious to most of us who is attacking, but technically when unsure one connects with the last noun; thus humans will attack without warning

Let's review yesterday's lesson: A little boy is dangerous to the unsuspecting ant. He copes by avoiding large moving objects. Great white sharks are dangerous to humans. They cope by avoiding deep water.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Excellent point, Dale, very well explained with a great example.

But the issue isn't one of grammar.

1 Reply

@JTT,

Quote:

Excellent point, Dale, very well explained with a great example.

Well thank you JTT, now it's three days. We should organize a Mutual Admiration Society

Quote:

But the issue isn't one of grammar.

Yet the OP title seems to indicate otherwise

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Yet the OP title seems to indicate otherwise

I noticed that the title seemed to contain within a loaded question. Perhaps that's what gave Ragman the opening he needed.

But remember, Dale, it was a question.

0 Replies

@Bennet,

Quote:

... he hasn't committed a comma splice.

Quote:

Comma splices: historical and informal, not wrong

http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/comma-splices-historical-and-informal-not-wrong/

1 Reply

@JTT,

Try to convince my english professors that I had in the past. If I presented that to them back then, or even now, they would throw an english grammar book at me- figuratively speaking of course. But I agree, too many unnecessary rules is lunacy.

1 Reply

Which one of the two sentences is grammatically correct and why?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know