 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Parenthetical Elements
Is there away to test or know if you have a parenthetical element? I understand the definition, but how as the writer do you identify the parenthetical element when you're not sure. Racheal >Is there away to test or know if you have a parenthetical element? I >understand the definition, but how as the writer do you identify the >parenthetical element when you're not sure. >Racheal The quick-and-dirty way to do it is to try the sentence with the element in question omitted. If the sentence stands without needing to be recast in anyway, the element in question is parenthetical.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >Is there away to test or know if you have a parenthetical element? I > >understand the definition, but how as the writer do you identify the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com By that standard, your own sentence could be read as ... the (quick and dirty) way to do it is to try (the sentence) with the element (in question) omitted ... to say nothing of the fact that you have to identify the potential parenthetical element in order to decide whether it is such, which strikes me as a somewhat circular approach! I'm not sure whether there is one, but methinks Racheal's looking for a method which will smack one in the eye with its obviousness, n'est-ce-pas? >> >Is there away to test or know if you have a parenthetical element? I >> >understand the definition, but how as the writer do you identify the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > sure whether there is one, but methinks Racheal's looking for a method > which will smack one in the eye with its obviousness, n'est-ce-pas? I have to defend Barbara here Tortoise, especially since it is your reasoning which is asinine. The quick and dirty rule to which Barbara refers is nearly the same as that for non-restrictive clauses. Ex: My father (an early grayer) was always a classy dresser. My father, who grayed early, was always a classy dresser. Either sentence can stand without the parenthetical insertion or the n-rc. Joanne > >> >Is there away to test or know if you have a parenthetical element? I > >> >understand the definition, but how as the writer do you identify the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Joanne Of course it's asinine! How else would one prove that a method is not foolproof other than being the fool against whom it is not proofed? >> >> >Is there away to test or know if you have a parenthetical element? I >> >> >understand the definition, but how as the writer do you identify the [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Of course it's asinine! How else would one prove that a method is not > foolproof other than being the fool against whom it is not proofed? I haven't read any statement from any poster indicating any test is foolproof. > Is there away to test or know if you have a parenthetical element? I > understand the definition, but how as the writer do you identify the > parenthetical element when you're not sure. m/\(.+\)/ SignatureSuddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp out of the blue, no explanation. > > Is there away to test or know if you have a parenthetical element? I > > understand the definition, but how as the writer do you identify the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Suddenly someone'll say, like, plate, or shrimp, or plate o' shrimp > out of the blue, no explanation. Very clever, smarty pants :) Shouldn't you have cross-posted to alt.perl.usage? LAM > Is there away to test or know if you have a parenthetical element? I > understand the definition, but how as the writer do you identify the > parenthetical element when you're not sure. > Racheal I use them all of the time. I find that if the item were included in the text, it would cause you to deviate from your subject. However, if you feel that the word or phrase is necessary for clarity, piquing interest, or to make a point within a point, then it is parenthetical. If you can leave it out or include it in regular text somewhere else though, do so. SignatureYours, Dan S. Temporary sig pending inspiration: - If I did all the things that will "only" take {X} minutes per day, it would take three days to do them all. All non-restrictive clauses (or phrases) are parenthetical expressions, but not all parenthetic expressions are non-restrictive clauses (or phrases): "also," "perhaps," "indeed," "too" are good examples. ]how do you identify the parenthetical ]element when you're not sure. Racheal A parenthetical element is _not_ essential to the meaning of the main clause or sentence. It's that simple. CH |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.