Sentence Workshop

[nickel]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[pontios]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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