# Sentence Workshop



## pontios (Aug 1, 2013)

I hope I'm not becoming a nuisance (I will limit it to 10 sentences and others are welcome to submit any sentences they are working on).

(Maybe the hyphen workshop should be deleted: it's relatively easy to google search compound words to determine if they need to be hyphenated or not; sentences are a different matter).

Here's a sentence I'm working on at the moment (and I welcome any suggestions).

*If the detainees were to stray from these rules, they would be immediately isolated and would incur an appropriate punishment, which would be decided by an adjudicating officer according to the severity of the offence; and they would always be starved during their isolation.*

Instead of " If the detainees were to..", I could write "Should the detainees stray ... " - but then I'm not sure if I'm in the right tense?

Another possible variation is ...

*If the detainees were to stray from these rules, they would be immediately isolated and would incur an appropriate punishment, as decided by an adjudicating officer in accordance with the severity of the offence; and they would always be starved during their isolation.*

Instead of "as decided", I'm now thinking "as to be decided" or (better still?) "as would be decided" might be the correct tense here?
Also, "they would immediately be isolated" vs "they would be immediately isolated"? .. but are we splitting infinitives?


----------



## nickel (Aug 1, 2013)

Hi. Some of the points you have raised here:

If the detainees were to stray from these rules
Should the detainees stray from these rules
Same thing, same tenses to follow.

immediately
as a time adverb:
they would immediately be isolated
they would be isolated immediately 
they would be immediately isolated
with the meaning ‘directly’:
they would be more immediately affected by the changes

an appropriate punishment, which would be decided > an appropriate punishment, to be decided


----------



## daeman (Aug 1, 2013)

pontios said:


> ...
> Also, "they would immediately be isolated" vs "they would be immediately isolated"? .. but are we splitting infinitives?



On splitting infinitives: *Split infinitive*



dharvatis said:


> Διαβάζοντας αυτό θυμήθηκα ένα σχετικό αστείο του Douglas Adams από το _Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ και διαπίστωσα ότι το αναφέρει και η Wikipedia στην ίδια σελίδα :-D :-D :-D
> "In those days men were real men, women were real women, small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. And all dared to brave unknown terrors, to do mighty deeds, to boldly split infinitives that no man had split before — and thus was the Empire forged."


----------



## pontios (Aug 2, 2013)

Thanks, guys. :)



> nickel wrote ..
> If the detainees were to stray from these rules
> Should the detainees stray from these rules
> Same thing, same tenses to follow.


Okay!

To be or not to pedantically be an infinitive splitter, what is the answer?


re: "according to the severity of the offence" vs "in accordance with the severity of the offence", I'm going to choose the former.
"in accordance with an offence" sounds wrong (c.f., say, "in accordance with the rules", which would be fine).


----------



## nickel (Aug 2, 2013)

Καλημέρα. You split an infinitive when you separate 'to' from the verb. Where would you be splitting an infinitive in your sentence?

And, yes, "according to". Otherwise: in proportion to the severity of the offence / in relation to the severity of the offence.


----------



## pontios (Aug 2, 2013)

nickel said:


> Where would you be splitting an infinitive in your sentence?



Hi, nickel.
Because I haven't really delved into it (or maybe I've forgotten the concept?), I (wrongly) assumed that a split infinitive arises whenever a word is inserted between a verb (e.g., they would immediately be), whereas (I now realise) an example of the construct would be "to boldy go", where the verb is in its infinitive form "to go".


----------



## pontios (Aug 4, 2013)

There's a pause in the following two sentences, where the flow or cadence is interrupted, which I've indicated with a dash.
The pause feels longer than a comma. Should I use a semicolon in place of the dash?

*They would spend this special day walking around Oradea, usually in circles of three or four friends, dressed in their uniforms but minus their hats, visiting shops, enjoying meals and drinking in moderation - always behaving in the disciplined manner that was expected of them.
*

*On his first outing, Yiannos went into a barber shop and came out a different person - with his hair clipped back and tidied up and his beard clean shaven.*


----------



## nickel (Aug 4, 2013)

Hi. Yes, I like the dash in both cases. 

It is best to use the so-called em dash, i.e. the long one (—). I type it in by pressing Alt and then 0151 in the numeric keypad (while keeping Alt pressed).
In Word you can also do it by combining Control-Alt-Numeric keypad dash, but as I use it all the time I've programmed two dashes to become an en dash (–) and the en dash plus one more dash to become an em dash.

In the second sentence, in more formal approaches, you would have the colon in place of the dash (note the added comma, too):
[He] came out a different person: with his hair clipped back and tidied up, and his beard clean shaven.


(Drop the 'but' before 'minus': 'dressed in their uniforms minus the hats'. Is it 'hats'?)


----------



## pontios (Aug 5, 2013)

Thank you, nickel.

I wasn't aware of the longer (em) dash.

Your additional comma in the second sentence makes sense and, you're right, the "but" is superfluous in the first sentence.

I might replace hats with visor caps or visor hats?


----------



## nickel (Aug 5, 2013)

pontios said:


> I might replace hats with visor caps or visor hats?



They could be visor hats / peaked caps, or they could be berets. I think 'peaked caps' is the best bet.


----------



## pontios (Aug 6, 2013)

nickel said:


> They could be visor hats / peaked caps, or they could be berets. I think 'peaked caps' is the best bet.



Thanks, nickel.
I'll run it past "the spymaster" (my uncle) to see what he thinks.


----------



## pontios (Aug 7, 2013)

re: punctuation in and around quotation marks.
I just wanted to check if I'm doing it right, and I've just come up with these lame examples (sorry I couldn't think of anything better).

James sighed before continuing, "I know it was you who stole my bike." 
or James sighed before he continued, "I know it was you who stole my bike."

James said,"I know it was you who stole my bike."

James looked upset. "I know it was you who stole my bike, Fred," he shouted.
or James looked upset. "I know it was you who stole my bike, Fred!" he shouted.

"I know it was you who stole my bike,"James said and then continued, "Why did you steal it?"
"Why did you steal my bike?" he said and then added,"Bring it back, you thief."


----------



## nickel (Aug 7, 2013)

They all look OK to me. (I think there's only a missing space in the last example but one.)


----------



## pontios (Aug 8, 2013)

Thanks, nickel. :)

Here's a couple of sentences.
I'm particularly interested in the second sentence (and I needed to sound you out again, sorry). 

Barba Dimitri suspended two bags containing his wares from his shoulders and, holding his grandson's hand, resumed his trek towards the village of Amohori, hoping that he would attract less attention this way. _"What threat would a kindly grandpa with his grandson possibly pose?"_ he thought to himself.

It's a rhetorical question, which he's thinking here - so do I use italics (and if so, should "he thought to himself" also be italicised?)?
Also, should I have written he had thought to himself (which I'm starting to lean towards), and (while I'm at it)"threat could over "threat would?


----------



## pontios (Aug 8, 2013)

edit ..."hoping to attract less attention this way" just came to me and it may be an improvement, I think (over "hoping (that) he would attract less attention this way"- as long as the tense remains consistent).

I'm not sure how this sounds?

Barba Dimitri suspended two bags containing his wares from his shoulders and, holding his grandson's hand, resumed his trek towards the village of Amohori, hoping to attract less attention this way. "What threat would a kindly grandpa with his grandson possibly pose?" he (had?) thought to himself.


----------



## pontios (Aug 9, 2013)

(This isn't a nudge ;) ) .. I just noticed an ambiguity (that the wares either originated/were sourced from or belonged to his shoulders).

So I've changed it to this (for now).
Barba Dimitri suspended two bags (containing his wares) from his shoulders and, holding his grandson's hand, resumed his trek towards the village of Amohori, hoping to attract less attention this way. "What threat would a kindly grandpa with his grandson possibly pose?" he (had?) thought to himself.

Now I've realised there's too many hisses (did he take a serpentine route?) .. his wares, his shoulders, his grandson's hand, his trek, his grandson - I can't win.


----------



## nickel (Aug 9, 2013)

Oops, missed this. Here's the version I like:

Barba Dimitri suspended two bags containing his wares from his shoulders and, holding his grandson's hand, resumed his trek towards the village of Amohori, hoping to attract less attention in this way. "What threat would a kindly grandpa with his grandson possibly pose?" he thought to himself.

And, no, you don't use italics for thoughts. I think this is a device used in subtitling. We use words such as _said, exclaimed, thought, said to himself_ and the like to make such things clear. Remember that a piece of text is often _read_ to others.


----------



## pontios (Aug 9, 2013)

nickel said:


> Oops, missed this. Here's the version I like:
> 
> Barba Dimitri suspended two bags containing his wares from his shoulders and, holding his grandson's hand, resumed his trek towards the village of Amohori, hoping to attract less attention in this way. "What threat would a kindly grandpa with his grandson possibly pose?" he thought to himself.
> 
> And, no, you don't use italics for thoughts. I think this is a device used in subtitling. We use words such as _said, exclaimed, thought, said to himself_ and the like to make such things clear. Remember that a piece of text is often _read_ to others.



Thanks, nickel.
Some good advice.
I've changed it to this.. (please give me a heads up if you think it needs further changing - should I have stuck with the brackets?).

Barba Dimitri suspended two bags, containing his wares, from his shoulders and, holding his grandson's hand, resumed his trek towards the village of Amohori, hoping to attract less attention in this way. "What threat would a kindly grandpa with his grandson possibly pose?" he thought to himself.

By the way, is it okay or normal practice to italicise subnotes and explanations?


----------



## nickel (Aug 9, 2013)

I actually dropped your brackets that made 'containing his wares' parenthetical and I'd suggest dropping the commas as well. There is no ambiguity here. When you see 'suspend something', you sort of expect the 'from' to follow.


----------



## pontios (Aug 9, 2013)

nickel said:


> I actually dropped your brackets that made 'containing his wares' parenthetical and I'd suggest dropping the commas as well. There is no ambiguity here. When you see 'suspend something', you sort of expect the 'from' to follow.



OK, thanks, nickel.
I've asked a further question (sorry) re: subnotes - should they be italicised?


----------



## nickel (Aug 9, 2013)

pontios said:


> By the way, is it okay or normal practice to italicise subnotes and explanations?


Καλημέρα. If you mean footnotes, they are written according to the rules applied to the rest of the text. The only difference is usually the smaller size of type. If you are preparing a book that will eventually be laid out in a desktop publishing program, it may be a good idea to ask in advance how they want the footnotes to be inserted in your text. 

Explanations or notes in the body of the text may follow the whim of the author in their presentation but font size is not an option.


----------



## pontios (Aug 9, 2013)

Καλημέρα, nickel.

Ναι, εννοούσα υποσημειώσεις (footnotes).

Πραγματικά με έχεις βοηθήσει﻿ σε όλα τα νήματα που ξεκίνησα, και το εκτιμώ πολύ.

You're the man!

Να είσαι πάντα καλά.


----------



## pontios (Aug 10, 2013)

Here's an interesting one. 
Which version gets the nod?

a. When he arrived at the factory, he was surprised to see that there were another two workers employed there and (was?) amazed at the obvious progress.

b. When he arrived at the factory, he was surprised to see there were another two workers employed there and (was?) amazed at the obvious progress.

or 

c. When he arrived at the factory, he was surprised to see another two workers employed there and (was?) amazed at the obvious progress.


----------



## nickel (Aug 10, 2013)

There is no real difference between 'see that there was' and 'see there was' — it's up to you. The former is just a bit formal but can be useful (see below).
I would use 'was amazed' in all three cases. Dropping the singular 'was' creates confusion, especially in (c). 
However, instead of saying 'surprised' twice (the second time with a synonym), how about:

When he arrived at the factory, he was surprised to see that there were another two workers employed there and that amazing / much progress had already been made.


----------



## pontios (Aug 10, 2013)

nickel said:


> When he arrived at the factory, he was surprised to see that there were another two workers employed there and that amazing / much progress had already been made



Good point - re: amazing/surprising.

I think this sounds OK:

When he arrived at the factory, he was surprised to see that there were another two workers employed there; it was obvious that much progress had been made.


----------



## pontios (Aug 11, 2013)

Καλημέρα. 

I'm working on this simple sentence:
*He dry coughed once, overwhelmed by a deep sense of relief.
*
.. and I can't get rid of the tell-tale green underline (in Word). 
If I hyphenate "dry-coughed", the whole sentence is underlined in green.
If I drop the hyphen, the word "dry" is underlined in green.

I also came up with this sentence ...
*He felt an urge to rush out, to chase after, to kill his father's murderer - as soon as possible.*
I'm not sure if I'm happy with it or if it's punctuated correctly?


----------



## nickel (Aug 11, 2013)

Deactivation of grammar checking is one of the first things I do to Word.

_Dry-cough_ as a verb is not a word known to the Word database, I presume. Add the hyphen and ignore any other warnings. Otherwise, go for standard English, acceptable to Word: He coughed once, dryly.

Also:
He felt an urge to rush out, chase after, kill his father's murderer — the sooner the better.


----------



## pontios (Aug 11, 2013)

Thanks, nickel.
I might deactivate it then.

Here's another sentence that was being underlined in green ("on the other hand").

Also, I'm trying to make up my mind between -

*Pavlos, on the other hand, was living on his own and (so?) could think and plan for himself without having to account to anyone.*

But the pause feels longer than a comma (I could be wrong or just tired?) .. so I thought a semicolon was in order.

Pavlos, on the other hand, was living on his own; and could think and plan for himself without having to account to anyone.
Pavlos, on the other hand, was living on his own; so could think and plan for himself without having to account to anyone.

Καληνύχτα από την Μελβούρνη!


----------



## pontios (Aug 28, 2013)

Good evening from down under.

I just came across this sentence.

*The ship finally weighed anchor and some hours later that evening passed through the Corinthian Canal and soon entered the open waters, heading towards its first port of call; Naples, Italy.*

It didn't sound right for some reason .. maybe because I've used two "ands" (maybe one too many?)? .. or maybe it's because the ship enters open waters once it sails through the Corinthian Canal (whereas I'm saying it "soon enters").

Do any of the following versions read better and make more sense?

*The ship finally weighed anchor and some hours later that evening passed through the Corinthian Canal; it then entered the open waters, heading towards its first port of call; Naples, Italy.*

or

*The ship finally weighed anchor and some hours later that evening passed through the Corinthian Canal and (then) entered the open waters, heading towards its first port of call; Naples, Italy.
*
What about this (which I'm starting to lean towards)?

*The ship finally weighed anchor and some hours later that evening passed through the Corinthian Canal, then entered the open waters, heading towards its first port of call; Naples, Italy.*


----------



## nickel (Aug 28, 2013)

The simplest change I'd go for:
The ship finally weighed anchor and some hours later that evening passed through the Corinth Canal and entered the open waters, heading towards its first port of call: Naples, Italy.

I just got rid of _soon_. I also changed the adjective for the Canal and used a colon in place of the semi-colon.


----------



## pontios (Aug 28, 2013)

Thank you, nickel.

Corinth Canal! .. there's one I missed.

So if a =
The ship finally weighed anchor and some hours later that evening passed through the Corinth Canal and entered the open waters, heading towards its first port of call: Naples, Italy.

and b=
The ship finally weighed anchor and some hours later that evening passed through the Corinth Canal, then entered the open waters, heading towards its first port of call: Naples, Italy.

a > b

The two "ands" (in a) don't detract? (actually the extra comma in b, before "then", probably detracts, now that I think about it).


----------



## nickel (Aug 28, 2013)

pontios said:


> The two "ands" (in a) don't detract?


No, not in my view. They actually create a nicer flow.


----------



## pontios (Aug 28, 2013)

nickel said:


> No, not in my view. They actually create a nicer flow.



OK!
I see what you're saying.
If the "ands" were separated by a comma (which of course isn't required here), it probably wouldn't have bothered me. Anyway, you alerted me to another mistake - Corinthian (I was thinking like a Pontian).


----------



## pontios (Aug 29, 2013)

Good morning from the most liveable city in the world to the most loveable forum in the world - I'm not flattering, just duly gushing. ;)


In the first 2 sentences below, I've underlined “he” as it may or may not be superfluous (I'm not sure which): does its inclusion improve things or does it detract? Should I omit it?


*1. He revealed his plans to his wife, and a few days later he caught a ride on a van heading to Thessaloniki.*
(should it be heading to or heading for?)

*2. Looking around the shop, he noticed a few of his fellow passengers from the train, sitting beside their suitcases, and he suddenly felt his mood improve as he no longer felt alone. He noticed someone close to his age that he was on the same carriage with and decided to introduce himself.*

Also, in 2 above - I'm considering "that he happened to be on the same carriage with" or "that happened to be on the same carriage" or "who happened to have been on the same carriage" ? - i.e., I'm not sure if I'm happy with the second sentence.

(In 3. below, there are people sitting inside a cafeteria waiting for the ship's boarding signal).


*3. At that moment, the ship sounded a loud, hoarse bellow. Most of the seated customers who were patiently waiting for this signal immediately grabbed their suitcases and started to exit the cafeteria. 
*
Is “who were” superfluous?
Does its inclusion improve things or detract from the sentence?
Should I have written the ship sounded its horn, which issued a loud, hoarse bellow?


----------



## nickel (Aug 29, 2013)

1. I’m happy either way.

heading for – heading to: Both are fine. If, on the other hand, you'd written ‘bound’, it should be ‘bound for’.

2. Again, both versions (with or without the pronoun) are fine, but the version without the pronoun is slightly better.
In the second sentence, ‘who happened to have been on the same carriage’ would be wrong – ‘happened’ + ‘to be’ = same time, ‘happened’ + ‘to have done’ = ‘have done’ before ‘happened’
How about: He noticed there was someone close to his age on the same carriage and...

3. How about: sounded its horn with a loud, hoarse bellow. 
Definitely keep ‘who were’.
What is the difference between:
Most of the seated customers who were patiently waiting for this signal immediately grabbed their suitcases...
and
Most of the seated customers, who were patiently waiting for this signal, immediately grabbed their suitcases…


----------



## pontios (Aug 30, 2013)

nickel said:


> What is the difference between:
> Most of the seated customers who were patiently waiting for this signal immediately grabbed their suitcases...
> and
> Most of the seated customers, who were patiently waiting for this signal, immediately grabbed their suitcases…





Thank you, and you make a good point, above, nickel.
For some reason I was thrown by the fact that we were talking about "most" (of the seated customers) and not "all" (and I was trying to get my head around that detail).
So it wasn't immediately clear to me whether the extra information (i.e., those who were patiently waiting for this signal) was essential or non-essential

I need to compare it to something like this to make sense of it (but I'm not sure if it's simplifying things - and it's a lame example, I know).

Most of my siblings, who are heavily tattooed and living at home, grabbed their suitcases. vs My only brother, who is heavily tattooed and living at home, grabbed his suitcase.

In the second instance, "who is heavily tattooed and living at home" is definitely non-essential (as we've already identified that it's my only brother).
In the first instance, it isn't immediately clear to me - but I can now see that it is non-essential (despite the fact that not all of my siblings who are tattooed and living at home grabbed their suitcases, it is still non-essential to "most of my siblings" or "most of the seated customers" who did - and we know, for certain, that those who did - grab their suitcase, that is - are all heavily tattooed and living at home).

So, analogously ...
Most of the seated customers, who were patiently waiting for this signal, immediately grabbed their suitcases (the commas do come into play).

Do you agree with my line of reasoning?

I've also taken your other advice on board; although, I'm still confused with "happened to have been".
https://www.google.com.au/#q=+"happened+to+have+been+"+

Expressions like ...I happened to have been in the room/train carriage when it happened (or when I first saw him), or James, who happened to have been in the room at the time, when I first saw him .... are quite common.


----------



## pontios (Aug 30, 2013)

Actually, no, I may have made a mistake.
Scrap everything I said above.

I'm referring to the seated customers who were patiently waiting for this signal!

One thing's for sure: "most" confuses and blurs things. 


Why don't I just drop "most"?

The seated customers who were patiently waiting for this signal immediately grabbed their suitcases .. (those who were not "patiently waiting for this signal" went on to order a second latte).
End of headache!


----------



## pontios (Sep 2, 2013)

Στη πρόταση παρακάτω, θα ταίριαζε καλύτερα εν κόμμα στη θέση του υπογραμμισμένου "and" (δηλαδή εάν το αντικαθιστούσε);

*Yiannos was gazing out of the cell window and slowly sipping and enjoying his early morning tea, when he suddenly noticed a woman quickly approaching who appeared to be holding something close to her chest.*

Also, should the sentence be restated (as I'm used to seeing the defining clause - "who appeared ..." immediately following a pronoun - "woman" in this case - whereas we have the interposed "quickly approached" here)?

For instance, should it be restated as...

*Yiannos was gazing out of the cell window and slowly sipping and enjoying his early morning tea, when he suddenly noticed a woman who appeared to be holding something close to her chest, quickly approaching.*

or ... when he suddenly noticed a quickly approaching woman who appeared ...?


----------



## pontios (Sep 4, 2013)

A couple of quick ones.

1.They had managed to crawl about ten metres, and were lying inside a waterlogged ditch. 

2. They were both shivering from the cold, and had started to cough uncontrollably.


One subject (they) in both cases - so the comma is not required (in both instances).
Yet the comma feels right.

Do both sentences work better with the comma?

Some of my earlier queries may be purely academic now - I've ended up simplifying some of the sentences (as they were doing my head in).


----------



## nickel (Sep 4, 2013)

Hi. You don't need the commas. I'll get back in about a week for the rest. :)


----------



## pontios (Sep 4, 2013)

nickel said:


> Hi. You don't need the commas. I'll get back in about a week for the rest. :)



Thank you, nickel.
I'll adhere to the single subject-multiple verb rule then.

Take your time with the rest (this last "quickie" was more important to me).


----------



## pontios (Sep 6, 2013)

Here's another quick query.

"My advice to you, given the dismal state you're in, is to cooperate with us; otherwise, your suffering will continue.”

Are the commas and semicolon correctly used?
Is the comma after "otherwise" optional (given that it's a short clause that immediately follows a strong pause provided by the semicolon)?


----------

