Is “has or will read” grammatical?
I just wrote [he] has or will read [some text] in an ELL chat room. But looking at it (or more accurately, listening to my "inner voice" trying to "read it aloud"), I find it bothers me a lot.
A quick check on Google Books finds a claimed 1020 written instances of has or will read, and 2480 instances of has read or will read, which suggests a significant minority of writers don't have a problem with the fact that the two different read's don't sound the same.
When I check the same construction with other verbs that don't have the same written form for past participle and present tense, it seems people nearly always include both (e.g. has worked or will work:1230, has or will work:8; has arrived or will arrive:357, has or will arrive:7).
I'm not usually a big fan of "grammatical rules", but it seems to me there "ought" to be a rule that you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's "the same" as the one you're keeping. And it also seems to me that since language is primarily spoken, "the same" ought to mean "sounds the same when spoken", not "looks the same when written".
Can anyone who knows more than me about formal rules of grammar settle this one?
As an aside, offhand I can't think of any verb where the past participle and present tense sound the same but are written differently (maybe there aren't any), but would deletion be okay in that case?
grammaticality conjunction-reduction
edited Nov 6 '16 at 17:45
tchrist♦
109k30294469
asked Jul 31 '13 at 21:27
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
120k33245429
|
show 11 more comments
I just wrote [he] has or will read [some text] in an ELL chat room. But looking at it (or more accurately, listening to my "inner voice" trying to "read it aloud"), I find it bothers me a lot.
A quick check on Google Books finds a claimed 1020 written instances of has or will read, and 2480 instances of has read or will read, which suggests a significant minority of writers don't have a problem with the fact that the two different read's don't sound the same.
When I check the same construction with other verbs that don't have the same written form for past participle and present tense, it seems people nearly always include both (e.g. has worked or will work:1230, has or will work:8; has arrived or will arrive:357, has or will arrive:7).
I'm not usually a big fan of "grammatical rules", but it seems to me there "ought" to be a rule that you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's "the same" as the one you're keeping. And it also seems to me that since language is primarily spoken, "the same" ought to mean "sounds the same when spoken", not "looks the same when written".
Can anyone who knows more than me about formal rules of grammar settle this one?
As an aside, offhand I can't think of any verb where the past participle and present tense sound the same but are written differently (maybe there aren't any), but would deletion be okay in that case?
grammaticality conjunction-reduction
edited Nov 6 '16 at 17:45
tchrist♦
109k30294469
asked Jul 31 '13 at 21:27
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
120k33245429
1
@FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.
– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 22:12
7
I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.
– Shoe
Aug 1 '13 at 14:04
1
Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Aug 1 '13 at 15:11
1
to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.
– jlovegren
Aug 2 '13 at 0:10
1
@jlovegren: I cannot deny that I actually asked this question more because it was "interesting" than because I seriously expected a meaningful answer to the matter of whether or not the usage is "grammatical". But I've learned that it can be called non-parallel ellipsis, and I really like Janus's antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis (okay, so I had to look up antanaclatic - but I really liked the overall expression once I'd got past that bit! :)
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 2:47
|
show 11 more comments
I just wrote [he] has or will read [some text] in an ELL chat room. But looking at it (or more accurately, listening to my "inner voice" trying to "read it aloud"), I find it bothers me a lot.
A quick check on Google Books finds a claimed 1020 written instances of has or will read, and 2480 instances of has read or will read, which suggests a significant minority of writers don't have a problem with the fact that the two different read's don't sound the same.
When I check the same construction with other verbs that don't have the same written form for past participle and present tense, it seems people nearly always include both (e.g. has worked or will work:1230, has or will work:8; has arrived or will arrive:357, has or will arrive:7).
I'm not usually a big fan of "grammatical rules", but it seems to me there "ought" to be a rule that you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's "the same" as the one you're keeping. And it also seems to me that since language is primarily spoken, "the same" ought to mean "sounds the same when spoken", not "looks the same when written".
Can anyone who knows more than me about formal rules of grammar settle this one?
As an aside, offhand I can't think of any verb where the past participle and present tense sound the same but are written differently (maybe there aren't any), but would deletion be okay in that case?
grammaticality conjunction-reduction
edited Nov 6 '16 at 17:45
tchrist♦
109k30294469
asked Jul 31 '13 at 21:27
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
120k33245429
I just wrote [he] has or will read [some text] in an ELL chat room. But looking at it (or more accurately, listening to my "inner voice" trying to "read it aloud"), I find it bothers me a lot.
A quick check on Google Books finds a claimed 1020 written instances of has or will read, and 2480 instances of has read or will read, which suggests a significant minority of writers don't have a problem with the fact that the two different read's don't sound the same.
When I check the same construction with other verbs that don't have the same written form for past participle and present tense, it seems people nearly always include both (e.g. has worked or will work:1230, has or will work:8; has arrived or will arrive:357, has or will arrive:7).
I'm not usually a big fan of "grammatical rules", but it seems to me there "ought" to be a rule that you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's "the same" as the one you're keeping. And it also seems to me that since language is primarily spoken, "the same" ought to mean "sounds the same when spoken", not "looks the same when written".
Can anyone who knows more than me about formal rules of grammar settle this one?
As an aside, offhand I can't think of any verb where the past participle and present tense sound the same but are written differently (maybe there aren't any), but would deletion be okay in that case?
grammaticality conjunction-reduction
grammaticality conjunction-reduction
edited Nov 6 '16 at 17:45
tchrist♦
109k30294469
asked Jul 31 '13 at 21:27
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
120k33245429
edited Nov 6 '16 at 17:45
tchrist♦
109k30294469
asked Jul 31 '13 at 21:27
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
120k33245429
edited Nov 6 '16 at 17:45
tchrist♦
109k30294469
edited Nov 6 '16 at 17:45
tchrist♦
109k30294469
edited Nov 6 '16 at 17:45
tchrist♦
109k30294469
109k30294469
asked Jul 31 '13 at 21:27
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
120k33245429
asked Jul 31 '13 at 21:27
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
120k33245429
asked Jul 31 '13 at 21:27
FumbleFingersFumbleFingers
120k33245429
120k33245429
1
@FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.
– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 22:12
7
I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.
– Shoe
Aug 1 '13 at 14:04
1
Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Aug 1 '13 at 15:11
1
to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.
– jlovegren
Aug 2 '13 at 0:10
1
@jlovegren: I cannot deny that I actually asked this question more because it was "interesting" than because I seriously expected a meaningful answer to the matter of whether or not the usage is "grammatical". But I've learned that it can be called non-parallel ellipsis, and I really like Janus's antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis (okay, so I had to look up antanaclatic - but I really liked the overall expression once I'd got past that bit! :)
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 2:47
|
show 11 more comments
1
@FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.
– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 22:12
7
I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.
– Shoe
Aug 1 '13 at 14:04
1
Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Aug 1 '13 at 15:11
1
to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.
– jlovegren
Aug 2 '13 at 0:10
1
@jlovegren: I cannot deny that I actually asked this question more because it was "interesting" than because I seriously expected a meaningful answer to the matter of whether or not the usage is "grammatical". But I've learned that it can be called non-parallel ellipsis, and I really like Janus's antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis (okay, so I had to look up antanaclatic - but I really liked the overall expression once I'd got past that bit! :)
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 2:47
1
1
@FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.
– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 22:12
@FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.
– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 22:12
7
7
I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.
– Shoe
Aug 1 '13 at 14:04
I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.
– Shoe
Aug 1 '13 at 14:04
1
1
Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Aug 1 '13 at 15:11
Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Aug 1 '13 at 15:11
1
1
to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.
– jlovegren
Aug 2 '13 at 0:10
to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.
– jlovegren
Aug 2 '13 at 0:10
1
1
@jlovegren: I cannot deny that I actually asked this question more because it was "interesting" than because I seriously expected a meaningful answer to the matter of whether or not the usage is "grammatical". But I've learned that it can be called non-parallel ellipsis, and I really like Janus's antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis (okay, so I had to look up antanaclatic - but I really liked the overall expression once I'd got past that bit! :)
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 2:47
@jlovegren: I cannot deny that I actually asked this question more because it was "interesting" than because I seriously expected a meaningful answer to the matter of whether or not the usage is "grammatical". But I've learned that it can be called non-parallel ellipsis, and I really like Janus's antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis (okay, so I had to look up antanaclatic - but I really liked the overall expression once I'd got past that bit! :)
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 2:47
|
show 11 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.
My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.
For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.
answered Aug 1 '13 at 19:45
John M. LandsbergJohn M. Landsberg
7,24721439
1
Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".
– FumbleFingers
Aug 1 '13 at 19:55
3
People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.
– John Lawler
Aug 1 '13 at 20:25
3
@John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 1:28
add a comment |
The relevant grammatical rules involved here are
- The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.
- Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.
- Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.
The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.
The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.
Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.
Then both
- *He has or will sing that song
- *He has or will sung that song
are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.
And that's why
- *He has or will read that book
is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be
He has red or will reed that book
(spelled funnetikly)
because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.
And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.
If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of
monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:
- He has or will set the plan in motion.
- He has or will cut them some slack.
- He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.
These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that
- the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,
but
- the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.
The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.
answered May 2 '16 at 20:50
John LawlerJohn Lawler
84.9k6118332
2
Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.
– John Lawler
May 4 '16 at 23:03
add a comment |
I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."
I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.
I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:
I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 2 '16 at 0:17
sumelicsumelic
49.6k8116223
add a comment |
I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.
May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."
edited 13 hours ago
FumbleFingers
120k33245429
answered Aug 1 '13 at 13:28
Paul WilsonPaul Wilson
444
3
I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?
– John M. Landsberg
Aug 2 '13 at 0:06
What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?
– GEdgar
May 7 '16 at 17:43
It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)
– FumbleFingers
13 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121037%2fis-has-or-will-read-grammatical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.
My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.
For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.
answered Aug 1 '13 at 19:45
John M. LandsbergJohn M. Landsberg
7,24721439
1
Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".
– FumbleFingers
Aug 1 '13 at 19:55
3
People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.
– John Lawler
Aug 1 '13 at 20:25
3
@John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 1:28
add a comment |
I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.
My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.
For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.
answered Aug 1 '13 at 19:45
John M. LandsbergJohn M. Landsberg
7,24721439
1
Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".
– FumbleFingers
Aug 1 '13 at 19:55
3
People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.
– John Lawler
Aug 1 '13 at 20:25
3
@John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 1:28
add a comment |
I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.
My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.
For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.
answered Aug 1 '13 at 19:45
John M. LandsbergJohn M. Landsberg
7,24721439
I must say I couldn't even understand what "has or will read" even meant for a minute or so. I had to skip the phrase itself and read further into the context to begin to understand what you were talking about.
My answer, therefore, is that I am not merely uncomfortable with the deletion, I find it incomprehensible. "Has or will read" for me is simply unacceptable.
For what it's worth, here is something which might shed some light (or at least some interesting color) on the matter. Neurophysiologists have found that if you have two friends named Gandalf, the wave pattern generated in your brain is consistently the same for each one, and not at all the same as the other, even though the words sound the same to the ear and look the same to the eye. In other words, "read" and "read" are very much different words, their visual appearance notwithstanding.
answered Aug 1 '13 at 19:45
John M. LandsbergJohn M. Landsberg
7,24721439
answered Aug 1 '13 at 19:45
John M. LandsbergJohn M. Landsberg
7,24721439
answered Aug 1 '13 at 19:45
John M. LandsbergJohn M. Landsberg
7,24721439
answered Aug 1 '13 at 19:45
John M. LandsbergJohn M. Landsberg
7,24721439
7,24721439
1
Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".
– FumbleFingers
Aug 1 '13 at 19:55
3
People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.
– John Lawler
Aug 1 '13 at 20:25
3
@John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 1:28
add a comment |
1
Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".
– FumbleFingers
Aug 1 '13 at 19:55
3
People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.
– John Lawler
Aug 1 '13 at 20:25
3
@John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 1:28
1
1
Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".
– FumbleFingers
Aug 1 '13 at 19:55
Poles apart indeed! StoneyB (to whom the original was addressed) didn't even notice the "awkwardness" at the time, but to you it's so bad it actually prevented you from parsing the words at first. Admittedly, he had the benefit of more context, but even so... And I suppose I must fall somewhere in the "temperate zone" between those two poles, given that I wrote it without any qualms, but only had misgivings after I'd clicked Post Comment, and tried to read back my own text using my "inner voice".
– FumbleFingers
Aug 1 '13 at 19:55
3
3
People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.
– John Lawler
Aug 1 '13 at 20:25
People differ in what they notice when they read. They react to things like spelling failures (read, reed, rede /rid/; read, red /rɛd/; lead, lede /lid/; lead, led 'lɛd/; _dead, head, bread, etc) with quite a lot of different strategies. Some hear the sounds; others don't. For the record, I do, and since (a) Conjunction Reduction requires exact identity, and (b) /rid/ and /rɛd/ are not identical, I would star that particular sentence.
– John Lawler
Aug 1 '13 at 20:25
3
3
@John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 1:28
@John: When I read Riddley Walker I found the eye dialect/futuristic spelling/vocabulary quite strange at first, but unlike Finnegans Wake (which I just got fed up with and abandoned halfway through), I became quite fascinated by Hoban's "could-have-been-real" language after a couple of chapters. That was decades ago, but I only recently watched The Clan of the Cave Bear (1985), which also has some pretty interesting "pseudo-language". I think I "adapt" easily.
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 1:28
add a comment |
The relevant grammatical rules involved here are
- The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.
- Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.
- Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.
The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.
The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.
Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.
Then both
- *He has or will sing that song
- *He has or will sung that song
are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.
And that's why
- *He has or will read that book
is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be
He has red or will reed that book
(spelled funnetikly)
because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.
And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.
If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of
monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:
- He has or will set the plan in motion.
- He has or will cut them some slack.
- He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.
These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that
- the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,
but
- the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.
The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.
answered May 2 '16 at 20:50
John LawlerJohn Lawler
84.9k6118332
2
Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.
– John Lawler
May 4 '16 at 23:03
add a comment |
The relevant grammatical rules involved here are
- The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.
- Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.
- Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.
The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.
The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.
Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.
Then both
- *He has or will sing that song
- *He has or will sung that song
are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.
And that's why
- *He has or will read that book
is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be
He has red or will reed that book
(spelled funnetikly)
because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.
And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.
If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of
monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:
- He has or will set the plan in motion.
- He has or will cut them some slack.
- He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.
These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that
- the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,
but
- the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.
The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.
answered May 2 '16 at 20:50
John LawlerJohn Lawler
84.9k6118332
2
Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.
– John Lawler
May 4 '16 at 23:03
add a comment |
The relevant grammatical rules involved here are
- The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.
- Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.
- Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.
The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.
The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.
Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.
Then both
- *He has or will sing that song
- *He has or will sung that song
are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.
And that's why
- *He has or will read that book
is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be
He has red or will reed that book
(spelled funnetikly)
because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.
And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.
If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of
monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:
- He has or will set the plan in motion.
- He has or will cut them some slack.
- He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.
These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that
- the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,
but
- the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.
The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.
answered May 2 '16 at 20:50
John LawlerJohn Lawler
84.9k6118332
The relevant grammatical rules involved here are
- The Perfect auxiliary have must be followed by the past participle form of the next verb.
- Modal auxiliary verbs like will must be followed by the infinitive form of the next verb.
- Conjunction Reduction optionally deletes the first of two identical verbs following auxiliaries.
The question is what counts as "identical" for conjunction reduction.
And the answer is that "identical" means "identical in sound". Nobody would ever say this sentence, for precisely the reasons described in the answers and comments here. That is, this isn't a question about English; this is about English spelling and reading, which is technology, not linguistics.
The problem with this sentence is that it looks like it should be OK, but it doesn't sound like it is.
Take a verb like sing, sang, sung, with different infinitive (sing) and past participle (sung) forms.
Then both
- *He has or will sing that song
- *He has or will sung that song
are ungrammatical, no matter which form is used.
And that's why
- *He has or will read that book
is ungrammatical. It could only happen in writing; it's a cheat, like a sight rhyme. It really should be
He has red or will reed that book
(spelled funnetikly)
because words pronounced differently can't do conjunction reduction.
And spelling doesn't count. No English grammar rule has anything to do with spelling.
If you try verbs with identical infinitive and past participle forms, like the set of
monosyllabic final-t verbs like set, set, set; cut, cut, cut; or put, put, put:
- He has or will set the plan in motion.
- He has or will cut them some slack.
- He has or will put it on display in the main gallery.
These sound perfectly grammatical (if needlessly complex), to me. This despite the facts that
- the set, cut, or put following will must be an infinitive,
but
- the set, cut, or put following has must be a past participle.
The abstract grammatical category of the deleted verb seems to be irrelevant -- as long as they sound the same, they're identical. And as long as that's the case, you can delete the first one.
answered May 2 '16 at 20:50
John LawlerJohn Lawler
84.9k6118332
edited 13 hours ago
answered May 2 '16 at 20:50
John LawlerJohn Lawler
84.9k6118332
answered May 2 '16 at 20:50
John LawlerJohn Lawler
84.9k6118332
answered May 2 '16 at 20:50
John LawlerJohn Lawler
84.9k6118332
84.9k6118332
2
Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.
– John Lawler
May 4 '16 at 23:03
add a comment |
2
Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.
– John Lawler
May 4 '16 at 23:03
2
2
Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.
– John Lawler
May 4 '16 at 23:03
Just thought of a differently-weird example: He has or will lead the band this year.
– John Lawler
May 4 '16 at 23:03
add a comment |
I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."
I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.
I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:
I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 2 '16 at 0:17
sumelicsumelic
49.6k8116223
add a comment |
I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."
I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.
I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:
I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 2 '16 at 0:17
sumelicsumelic
49.6k8116223
add a comment |
I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."
I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.
I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:
I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 2 '16 at 0:17
sumelicsumelic
49.6k8116223
I just realized that a question I answered a while ago was about the same issue (How to agree verb with has and will in same sentence?). The sentence in that question used the format "has never and will never."
I would be inclined to say that this structure is grammatical, based on the evidence in your post that it is actually used.
I don't think there can be a general rule that "you shouldn't delete one instance of the verb unless it's 'the same' as the one you're keeping" because that would falsely suggest sentences like the following are ungrammatical:
I have never read that book, and I never will (read it).
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
answered May 2 '16 at 0:17
sumelicsumelic
49.6k8116223
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:38
Community♦
1
1
answered May 2 '16 at 0:17
sumelicsumelic
49.6k8116223
answered May 2 '16 at 0:17
sumelicsumelic
49.6k8116223
answered May 2 '16 at 0:17
sumelicsumelic
49.6k8116223
49.6k8116223
add a comment |
add a comment |
I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.
May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."
edited 13 hours ago
FumbleFingers
120k33245429
answered Aug 1 '13 at 13:28
Paul WilsonPaul Wilson
444
3
I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?
– John M. Landsberg
Aug 2 '13 at 0:06
What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?
– GEdgar
May 7 '16 at 17:43
It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)
– FumbleFingers
13 hours ago
add a comment |
I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.
May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."
edited 13 hours ago
FumbleFingers
120k33245429
answered Aug 1 '13 at 13:28
Paul WilsonPaul Wilson
444
3
I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?
– John M. Landsberg
Aug 2 '13 at 0:06
What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?
– GEdgar
May 7 '16 at 17:43
It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)
– FumbleFingers
13 hours ago
add a comment |
I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.
May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."
edited 13 hours ago
FumbleFingers
120k33245429
answered Aug 1 '13 at 13:28
Paul WilsonPaul Wilson
444
I greatly prefer "has read or will read" because I think someone reading this aloud could do so without skipping a beat. On the other hand, "has or will read" requires the reader unexpectedly to select a pronunciation; and presents a Hobson's choice because both pronunciations are incorrect for one of the verb tenses.
May I be so reckless as to suggest using the heretical parenthetical? E.g.: "Tommy has (or will) read the assignment."
edited 13 hours ago
FumbleFingers
120k33245429
answered Aug 1 '13 at 13:28
Paul WilsonPaul Wilson
444
edited 13 hours ago
FumbleFingers
120k33245429
edited 13 hours ago
FumbleFingers
120k33245429
edited 13 hours ago
FumbleFingers
120k33245429
120k33245429
answered Aug 1 '13 at 13:28
Paul WilsonPaul Wilson
444
answered Aug 1 '13 at 13:28
Paul WilsonPaul Wilson
444
answered Aug 1 '13 at 13:28
Paul WilsonPaul Wilson
444
444
3
I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?
– John M. Landsberg
Aug 2 '13 at 0:06
What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?
– GEdgar
May 7 '16 at 17:43
It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)
– FumbleFingers
13 hours ago
add a comment |
3
I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?
– John M. Landsberg
Aug 2 '13 at 0:06
What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?
– GEdgar
May 7 '16 at 17:43
It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)
– FumbleFingers
13 hours ago
3
3
I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?
– John M. Landsberg
Aug 2 '13 at 0:06
I puzzled over the parenthetical suggestion for a bit, Paul, and eventually decided that it is unable to solve the problem. What it does it set "read" as linked with "has," and then "will" must follow suit, which it can't. No? Wrong am I, Skywalker?
– John M. Landsberg
Aug 2 '13 at 0:06
What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?
– GEdgar
May 7 '16 at 17:43
What about a similar case where the two parallel words are pronounced the same ... "has or will come"?
– GEdgar
May 7 '16 at 17:43
It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)
– FumbleFingers
13 hours ago
It was over 5 years ago when I upvoted this answer. But looking at it again now I can't imagine why I did that, so I've made a "non-edit" just so I could reverse my vote. Because quite frankly I can't see how the "heretical parenthetical" makes any difference at all as regards the matter under consideration. (Which I still find interesting, even though I know there's no real "Answer" to be found! :)
– FumbleFingers
13 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f121037%2fis-has-or-will-read-grammatical%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
@FumbleFingers Actually, I didn't even notice. But after months on ELL I've sort of trained myself not to see things like that unless specifically invited to.
– StoneyB
Jul 31 '13 at 22:12
7
I asked a similar question (english.stackexchange.com/questions/48165) and learned that this is called non-parallel ellipsis. Fowler states bluntly that a sentence such as 'No state has or can adopt' is (however common) an elementary blunder. But reading around a bit on the topic it appears that some types of non-parallel ellipsis are more acceptable to readers than other. Your sentence is an interesting variation due to the identical spelling of infinitive and past participle, but I am usually brought to a dead halt when reading such constructions and avoid them myself.
– Shoe
Aug 1 '13 at 14:04
1
Your aside made me think that it should really even be possible to make a sort of garden-pathish, antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis, and one finally dawned on me (though it only works if spoken in a non-rhotic accent): “Surely someone has or will sort him out!” (To be read as: “Surely has sought him out or will sort him out!”)
– Janus Bahs Jacquet
Aug 1 '13 at 15:11
1
to address the offhand remark at the end, consider run. Those who have or will run in Boston marathon... also sounds awkward, so I don't think that the appropriateness of ellipsis is based on sound. the verbs have to be of the same inflectional category.
– jlovegren
Aug 2 '13 at 0:10
1
@jlovegren: I cannot deny that I actually asked this question more because it was "interesting" than because I seriously expected a meaningful answer to the matter of whether or not the usage is "grammatical". But I've learned that it can be called non-parallel ellipsis, and I really like Janus's antanaclatic non-parallel ellipsis (okay, so I had to look up antanaclatic - but I really liked the overall expression once I'd got past that bit! :)
– FumbleFingers
Aug 2 '13 at 2:47