Pedants' Paradise

[Pulcinella]

I found a plausible explanation in this article:

https://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/topic/repitition-of-auxiliary-verbs

Here are three examples used:

(1a) The prisoner was hungry and was given a meal.
(1b) ? The prisoner was hungry and given a meal.

(2a) The novel was long and was read over many weeks by the class.
(2b) ? The novel was long and read over many weeks by the class.

(3a) The tree was young and was not climbed by the children.
(3b) ? The tree was young and not climbed by the children.

[french frank]

I found a plausible explanation in this article:

https://thegrammarexchange.infopop.c...uxiliary-verbs

In all three of those examples the first 'was' isn't an auxiliary (it's followed by an adjective - hungry, long, young), in the second part it's followed by a participle (given, read, climbed). But in the Abbey example you quoted here, both clauses contain a participle (been, overseen). 'Been' isn't a passive, it's a perfect tense. What about: "He has acted as head of music and overseen rehearsals"? Would that be better?

My annoyance, just read in an article, is: "He was given warnings but did not pass them onto the playwright".

[gurnemanz]

In all three of those examples the first 'was' isn't an auxiliary (it's followed by an adjective - hungry, long, young), in the second part it's followed by a participle (given, read, climbed). But in the Abbey example you quoted here, both clauses contain a participle (been, overseen). 'Been' isn't a passive, it's a perfect tense. What about: "He has acted as head of music and overseen rehearsals"? Would that be better?

My annoyance, just read in an article, is: "He was given warnings but did not pass them onto the playwright".

For some reason my mind wandered back many years to Chomsky's deep structure and surface structure. He gave two sentences with the same pattern of words on the surface but with different underlying syntax:
1) He ran up a bill
2) He ran up a hill
On a surface level you could presumably say: He ran up a bill and a hill, whereas the different underlying structure might forbid it.

Re above:
'The prisoner was hungry and given a meal' would be valid, but only based on surface structure.

These elliptical utterances can sound faintly whimsical.
Eg. He lost his wallet and his temper.

[Pulcinella]

In all three of those examples the first 'was' isn't an auxiliary (it's followed by an adjective - hungry, long, young), in the second part it's followed by a participle (given, read, climbed). But in the Abbey example you quoted here, both clauses contain a participle (been, overseen). 'Been' isn't a passive, it's a perfect tense. What about: "He has acted as head of music and overseen rehearsals"? Would that be better?

Yes! That would be better.
(You're right, of course; the examples were not the same construction as the Abbey quote! )

My annoyance, just read in an article, is: "He was given warnings but did not pass them onto the playwright".

A similar thing happens with maybe and may be, as just one further example.

[cat]

From the announcement in the James O'Donnell thread:

https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-news/james-o-donnell-secures-role-at-yale-university

As the Abbey’s Director of Music he has been the head of the Abbey music department and overseen all musical aspects of the Abbey’s work, including directing the celebrated Choir of Westminster Abbey.

I would have written:

As the Abbey’s Director of Music he has been the head of the Abbey music department and has overseen all musical aspects of the Abbey’s work, including directing the celebrated Choir of Westminster Abbey.

The reluctance to repeat the auxiliary verb, which is increasingly prevalent, really annoys me!

Surely you don't repeat more words than necessary. Following your logic, why not repeat the "he" also:

As the Abbey’s Director of Music he has been the head of the Abbey music department and he has overseen all musical aspects of the Abbey’s work, including directing the celebrated Choir of Westminster Abbey.

Although I'd argue that overseeing all musical aspects of the Abbey’s work is simply a consequence of being the head of the Abbey music department, so it should really be:

As the Abbey’s Director of Music he has been the head of the Abbey music department, overseeing all musical aspects of the Abbey’s work including directing the celebrated Choir of Westminster Abbey.

[Bryn]

Yes! That would be better.
(You're right, of course; the examples were not the same construction as the Abbey quote! )



A similar thing happens with maybe and may be, as just one further example.

Grammarly is notoriously bad at discriminating between the alternatives in such cases.

[Pulcinella]

Surely you don't repeat more words than necessary. Following your logic, why not repeat the "he" also:

As the Abbey’s Director of Music he has been the head of the Abbey music department and he has overseen all musical aspects of the Abbey’s work, including directing the celebrated Choir of Westminster Abbey.

Although I'd argue that overseeing all musical aspects of the Abbey’s work is simply a consequence of being the head of the Abbey music department, so it should really be:

As the Abbey’s Director of Music he has been the head of the Abbey music department, overseeing all musical aspects of the Abbey’s work including directing the celebrated Choir of Westminster Abbey.

I like your solution.

I don't think that the 'he' needs repeating, as it (the word, subject of the sentence) carries over naturally.

[french frank]

These elliptical utterances can sound faintly whimsical.
Eg. He lost his wallet and his temper.

That's zeugma! He also pocketed the money and the insult.

Re may be and maybe: also for ever and forever.

Re onto: I usually split them, but on reflection I think onto could be considered a composite preposition and therefore logically joined eg He jumped down onto the geraniums. But where the on goes with one word/phrase and the to with another (as in passed on | to the playwright) it just sounds uncomfortable to me to write it as onto.

[gurnemanz]

That's zeugma! He also pocketed the money and the insult.

Thanks. I'd forgotten about zeugma and went back to Fowler, which refers to a man losing his hat and his temper. I must have mis-remembered. It directs you to syllepsis, which is an interchangeable term for it. The syllepsis entry is longer with more examples, eg Charles Dickens: "She went home in a flood of tears and a sedan chair".

[cat]

What do people think of presenters urging their audience to "have a listen to..." rather than "listen to..."?

[oddoneout]

What do people think of presenters urging their audience to "have a listen to..." rather than "listen to..."?

I can't say it bothers me overmuch. It's not so different from "have a look at...", "have a taste..." which are common usage? I would rather the invitation approach than the exhortation - " you really should/must listen..." etc.

[french frank]

Thanks. I'd forgotten about zeugma and went back to Fowler, which refers to a man losing his hat and his temper. I must have mis-remembered. It directs you to syllepsis, which is an interchangeable term for it. The syllepsis entry is longer with more examples, eg Charles Dickens: "She went home in a flood of tears and a sedan chair".

Wikpedia has a full article on the two. My own preference is to distinguish between examples where parallel clauses or phrases use a single word once in its literal sense and a second time, implied, in a figurative sense (as in 'He lost his hat and his temper', 'He pocketed the money and the insult'). That is what I would call zeugma.

The second case is similar but one which may result in a grammatically incorrect form, again unexpressed but implied: 'They work to eat, he to support his jet-set lifestyle'. I usually find a way round it. For simplicity, I shall think of that as syllepsis and continue to avoid it.

[ardcarp]

I never cease to be amazed at how many broadcasters, interviewees and generally educated people cannot say the word 'nuclear'.
It's as if they have some physiological impediment which prevents their vocal apparatus from producing the two consonants c and l together. But would they say 'carbuncule', 'uculear', disculaimer', bicycule' ? Surely it can't just be ignorance?

[Bryn]

I never cease to be amazed at how many broadcasters, interviewees and generally educated people cannot say the word 'nuclear'.
It's as if they have some physiological impediment which prevents their vocal apparatus from producing the two consonants c and l together. But would they say 'carbuncule', 'uculear', disculaimer', bicycule' ? Surely it can't just be ignorance?

Long overdue that they learned the new clear way of pronouncing the word.

[ardcarp]

the new clear way of pronouncing the word

We've thought far ages that this would be a simpule solution.