2
   

Parallelism

 
 
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 03:11 pm
Is the sentence below correct with respect to parallelism or do all nouns need an adjective? Thanks very much.

I have a black panther, a tiger, and a lion.
 
centrox
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 03:36 pm
@Doubtful,
Doubtful wrote:
Is the sentence below correct with respect to parallelism?
Yes.
Doubtful wrote:
Do all nouns need an adjective?
No.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 03:56 pm
@centrox,
I would drop the comma after tiger. What do you think?
dalehileman
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:03 pm
@izzythepush,
Izzy that's a good q 'cause the comma is on its way out except where needed for meaning. However, the speedreader still might infer some special connection between the tiger and lion
0 Replies
 
Doubtful
 
  3  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:04 pm
@izzythepush,
I believe the Oxford comma is required by scientific journals, so I always use it.

http://thewritepractice.com/why-you-need-to-be-using-oxford-commas/
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:11 pm
@Doubtful,
I would use the comma just to indicate the lion and the tiger were separate, as opposed to being a pair of animals.
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:23 pm
@roger,
It seems clear that they are separate due to the usage of a before each animal.
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:26 pm
@Sturgis,
Well, yes.
0 Replies
 
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:31 pm
@Doubtful,
A lot of us use the Oxford comma, including as you said, science papers, but also plenty of magazines here in the US.
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:33 pm
The Oxford comma confirms no special association between the last two items on the list.

15 very highbrow reasons why morality commands you to use the Oxford comma.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/sarahhenrich/15-reasons-why-you-should-use-the-oxford-comma-yr75?utm_term=.fy7a0Yo6w#.soKVWPYZ2
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:36 pm
@Lash,
That's how I should have said it.
Doubtful
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:44 pm
@ossobucotemp,
Doesn't the Chicago Manual of Style require it?
ossobucotemp
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:49 pm
@Doubtful,
I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised.
ossobucotemp
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 04:55 pm
@ossobucotemp,
My "style guide" is the New Yorker Magazine, not that I write as well as its writers do.
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/comma-queen-the-strippers-j-f-k-and-stalin-or-the-importance-of-serial-commas

I've read the magazine for sixty years, so I tend to follow it instinctively. I also fool around, and make some of my own rules: for example, I capitalize words somewhat less than rules call for at least in my every day sort of writing.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 09:34 pm
@roger,
Quote:
That's how I should have said it.


That would have only made you seem more confused.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  2  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 09:42 pm
@Doubtful,
These ideas are all part of the Strunk & White mumbo jumbo that has been so prevalent in US English "education" for well over 50 years.

Quote:


http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/002313.html

Still, it falls foul of Strunk & White's 19th principle in their Elements of Style, "Express coordinate ideas in parallel form"; in fact, it's a much bolder violation of this principle than the example that Strunk & White begin their discussion with:

(2) Formerly, science was taught by the textbook method, while now the laboratory method is employed.

Strunk & White continue their exposition on maxim 19 with various types of questionable coordinations, mostly of the sort we've been calling "WTF coordination" here at Language Log Plaza (most recently, in Eric Bakovic's report of a possible Bushism and in my discussion of two specific cases, one involving recipe register features, the other coordinate questions). That is, they lump together rhetorical parallelism and the requirements of syntax. As it turns out, they also work with an implicit, unexamined theory of coordination that's seriously confused. And they cast their advice in very general terms, without seeming to realize that their rules actually make predictions about what's acceptable English, many of which they would surely not welcome.

Strunk & White aren't alone in these respects. As I'll illustrate briefly from two recent manuals, the advice literature on parallelism exhibits all three of these problematic features: a fuzzy notion of parallelism (more generally, a failure to distinguish grammar, usage, and rhetoric), a seat-of-the-pants syntactic theory, and wildly overgeneralized prescriptions.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 09:49 pm
@camlok,
Never did like Strunk & White, didja?
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Apr, 2017 09:59 pm
@roger,
Does anyone who has any reasonable grasp of the English language like S&W, Roger?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 04:32 am
This is fun!

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/08/pedants-have-their-uses-why-such-fury-over-apostrophes?CMP=fb_gu
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Apr, 2017 11:47 pm
@ossobucotemp,
False Fronts in the Language Wars

Why New Yorker writers and others keep pushing bogus controversies.

Steven Pinker

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_good_word/2012/05/steven_pinker_on_the_false_fronts_in_the_language_wars_.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Is this comma splice? Is it proper? - Question by DaveCoop
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
Is the second "playing needed? - Question by tanguatlay
should i put "that" here ? - Question by Chen Ta
Unbeknownst to me - Question by kuben123
alternative way - Question by Nousher Ahmed
Could check my grammar mistakes please? - Question by LonelyGamer
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Parallelism
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 06:39:53