A question of tense

[SimonDoom]

The OP's sentence isn't an example of zeugma; neither is the Douglas Adams sentence. A compound verb alone isn't zeugma.

The initial problem is that the OP's sentence is confusing. Without knowing exactly what the OP is trying to say it's hard to say how to fix it. It's OK to write a long sentence as long as it preserves parallelism and uses commas appropriately, but this sentence doesn't do that.

I can't revise it without knowing what the OP wants to do, so I've inserted questions and comments in brackets:


She knelt beside me, [you should insert a comma here to join two independent clauses] and I felt her fingertip trace its way slowly [along my __________[you need to say where the fingertip is]], gently caressing [my ___________ [caressing is a transitive verb -- what is being caressed]], four more fingertips resting nearby. It [what is it? This pronoun has no antecedent. You could insert "The caress"] went on for a minute or two, [insert "and it"] was kinda soothing at a time I had a pretty good idea what would come next, and dreaded it. [This entire last section is confusing and non-parallel. I would probably replace everything after "soothing" with ",but I had a pretty good idea what would come next and dreaded it." The concept of dread is contrary to the concept of soothing, so I think you need a conjunction like "but" rather than "and." ]

An additional point, in response to the OP's initial question. "Dreading" is incorrect, because the verb must have the same tense as "had." So it should be "dreaded", but there should be no comma before "and" because you don't use a comma with a compound verb unless you are joining three or more verbs.

Ex: I watered and mowed the lawn.

But: I watered, fertilized, and mowed the lawn.

 

[jaF0]

That's why I mentioned a translation. It reads almost like one of those User Guides that was translated to English from Chinese or Korean. The words may be English, but the way they're put together doesn't read well enough to understand.

 

[NotWise]

An additional point, in response to the OP's initial question. "Dreading" is incorrect, because the verb must have the same tense as "had." So it should be "dreaded",

I don't agree. I can't parse the last sentence unambiguously, so I don't know the context. But I don't have to the context because MetaBob gave his own distillation of the question:

"I dreaded it"
vs
"I was dreading it"

In the first case, "dreaded" is the past-tense verb. "it" is the object of "dreaded."

In the second case, "was" is the past-tense verb, "dreading it" is a participial phrase that modifies "was." Alternatively, "dreading it" is a gerand phrase that acts as the object of "was."

Both sentences are in simple past tense.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't agree. I can't parse the last sentence unambiguously, so I don't know the context. But I don't have to the context because MetaBob gave his own distillation of the question:

"I dreaded it"
vs
"I was dreading it"

In the first case, "dreaded" is the past-tense verb. "it" is the object of "dreaded."

In the second case, "was" is the past-tense verb, "dreading it" is a participial phrase that modifies "was." Alternatively, "dreading it" is a gerand phrase that acts as the object of "was."

Both sentences are in simple past tense.

I don't think this is correct. "I was dreading it" is not simple past tense, it's past progressive tense, and therefore it is not parallel with "I had"

You can say

"I was having a pretty good idea . . . I was dreading it" (although this doesn't sound good at all)

Or you can say

"I had a pretty good idea . . . I dreaded it" (this is OK)

But you can't say

"I had a pretty good idea . . . I was dreading it"

You are mixing simple past tense and past progressive tense.

Here's a discussion of this issue: https://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/using-parallel-verbs

 

[NotWise]

I don't think this is correct. "I was dreading it" is not simple past tense, it's past progressive tense, and therefore it is not parallel with "I had"

Okay, I'll give you that, but I'll also submit that readers will understand either expression, and it's entirely the writer's choice what he wants to use. The need to be parallel with "had" is imposed by your disambiguation of the the original sentence, not by the author's own distillation of his question.

I don't think that parallel construction (as described in your link) is an issue here. Based on the author's distillation, the subject of the last clause is "I" which has been omitted. The last clause should be an independent clause, not part of a compound verb with parallel construction.

 

[SimonDoom]

Okay, I'll give you that, but I'll also submit that readers will understand either expression, and it's entirely the writer's choice what he wants to use. The need to be parallel with "had" is imposed by your disambiguation of the the original sentence, not by the author's own distillation of his question.

I don't think that parallel construction (as described in your link) is an issue here. Based on the author's distillation, the subject of the last clause is "I" which has been omitted. The last clause should be an independent clause, not part of a compound verb with parallel construction.

I agree with you on that. An independent clause would be clearer. But here's a question:

Which is better:

I had a pretty good idea what was coming next, and I dreaded it.

I had a pretty good idea what was coming next, and I was dreading it.

I think 1 is better, because it maintains a more consistent tense than 2. 2 is better than the way the OP constructed it because, as you say, it's got two independent clauses. But I think 1 is better still.

 

[NotWise]

Which is better:

I had a pretty good idea what was coming next, and I dreaded it.

I had a pretty good idea what was coming next, and I was dreading it.

I think 1 is better, because it maintains a more consistent tense than 2. 2 is better than the way the OP constructed it because, as you say, it's got two independent clauses. But I think 1 is better still.

The difference between your options is subtle.

I use both constructions in my writing. I'll decide on one or the other based on things like tone, text flow, and a need to give the reader varied construction. In some context, one might be better than the other, but in the OP, the context is too short and too confused to say.

 

[Hypoxia]

I provided my opinion and rewrite. I don't think it matters. I've committed worse fauxpas in Red-H stories. If meaning conveys without too much strain, fine. Now it's a Grammarian's Challenge. Which participle to pluck?

 

[MetaBob]

I've been away and/or preoccupied with other issues for a few days, but revisiting this subject is probably worthwhile on more than one level.

1. SimonDoom wrote:

The OP's sentence isn't an example of zeugma; neither is the Douglas Adams sentence.

This is a wonderful and possibly revealing comment considering that the Douglas Adams quote I provided is literally a textbook example of zeugma (diazeugma, to be specific, as previously mentioned, in which "a noun yokes together a string of verbs”). The textbook in question is "Trivium" from Wooden Books, a delightful volume that updates the ancient Greek and Latin curricula to modern English usage. The book within this volume is "Rhetoric", authored by Adina Arvatu and Prof. Andrew Aberdein, from p271 in my edition.

2. That said, I appreciate SimonDoom's thoughtful consideration of the issue(s) after posting his previous comment.

3. I wrote:

I had a pretty good idea what was coming next, and dreaded it.

To my mind this is far better than any permutation suggested to date here, with no need to repeat the redundant subject (“I”), as some have suggested; this phrase is certainly not the problem though the question of tense for the two sentences this clause concludes ... remains. I might still scramble this phrase as part of a hypothetical rewrite of these two brief sentences that have tripped me for months, and caused others to hyperventilate more these past few days but which I still hope to submit by Thursday. This concluding phrase, when considered in isolation, continues to work beautifully for me.

4. Grammar is apparently a very sensitive subject for some here (and doubtless elsewhere). Strong opinions, voiced vociferously. Honestly, I was hoping for literate, informed opinions because this has been thorny for me. I've without doubt gotten some, which I truly appreciate. I wouldn't have put this out there if I didn't think I could use the help. Grazie.

5. Gratuitous insults. I'm new here and wasn't sure what to expect if I put something like this question out there, but ... golly. That said, I'm not innocent on this account: I did write the phrase "I'm not writing for an audience that reads at an 8th-grade level," which I regret even though I didn't mean to direct it at anyone in particular, along with any hurt feelings this may have caused. Mea culpa all the way on that, but ...

6. Woolyworm wrote:

If he's trying to use zeugma, whatever that is, he's doing it wrong.

So you don't know what it is, but I'm doing it wrong. Good one. THAT said, you are clearly correct, I was indeed doing it wrong, which of course is why I requested help in the first place.

7. A sincere thank you to everyone who has offered encouragement of one sort or another, even (or especially) when articulated as constructive criticism.

 

[SimonDoom]

1. SimonDoom wrote:


This is a wonderful and possibly revealing comment considering that the Douglas Adams quote I provided is literally a textbook example of zeugma (diazeugma, to be specific, as previously mentioned, in which "a noun yokes together a string of verbs”). The textbook in question is "Trivium" from Wooden Books, a delightful volume that updates the ancient Greek and Latin curricula to modern English usage. The book within this volume is "Rhetoric", authored by Adina Arvatu and Prof. Andrew Aberdein, from p271 in my edition.

.

Sorry. I should have been clearer and more careful in my response. I was responding to whether it was zeugma, not diazeugma. They're different things, despite their shared use of the root "zeugma." You are correct about what "diazeugma" means, but "zeugma" is the use of a single verb in two different ways with two different words. Example: I lost my hat and my mind. "Lost" is literal with regard to hat but figurative with regard to mind. But you're right that diazeugma is a string of verbs, arranged in a parallel manner. The Douglas sentence is an example of diazeugma, but not zeugma.

Your sentences are not an example of diazeugma, because they don't contain a string of verbs parallel to one another. Sentence one is a compound sentence joining two independent clauses -- "she knelt" and "I felt" -- and sentence two is, more or less, the same thing, though you've omitted "it" in the second clause and you've joined the clauses with a comma splice:

"It went on"

+

"[It] was kinda soothing . . ."

They're non-parallel because "went" is an active verb and "was" is a linking verb. Look carefully at the Douglas example and you'll see that despite the number of verbs used, the verbs are all scrupulously parallel with one another -- all the same kind (active) and all in the same tense.

Grammar questions often provoke strong opinions in this forum (a good thing, I think), so don't take anything personally. Every time I say something questionable, which is often, Bramblethorn is quick to give a dozen examples proving that what I've said conflicts with the entire English literary canon and ElectricBlue keeps bringing up penguins. I just try to learn what I can and let the rest flow off my shiny, black-and-white feathered back.

 

[ElectricBlue]

...and ElectricBlue keeps bringing up penguins. I just try to learn what I can and let the rest flow off my shiny, black-and-white feathered back.

Don't think I'm ungrateful. The number of little things that I now check in edit because of your grammatical exactitude grows regularly. You know your grammatical shit far better than I do - I just write stuff so I can be told the rules to break next time .

 

[MetaBob]

SimonDoom, from the same textbook: "Zeugma has several subspecies. In Prozeugma ... In Diazeugma ... In Hypozeugma ..."

 

[SimonDoom]

SimonDoom, from the same textbook: "Zeugma has several subspecies. In Prozeugma ... In Diazeugma ... In Hypozeugma ..."

Interesting. That's different from the definitions I've been able to find. It doesn't really make sense to call it a subspecies because diazeugma as you described it is a completely different animal from zeugma in the sense I described it.

I'm not familiar with Trivium, but it sounds interesting.

 

[MetaBob]

From Trivium:

As a yoke joins together two oxen, so a verb may join together several objects, a subject several verbs, or a verb several subjects and objects. This figure is called Zeugma, from the Greek word for yoke. ...

Zeugma has several subspecies. In Prozeugma, the yoke comes first -- one verb governs several objects, or several subject-object pairs:
[Quotes from Lionel Strachey and Laurence Sterne]

In Diazeugma, a noun yokes together a string of verbs:
[Douglas Adams quote]

In Hypozeugma, the yoke comes last. A verb may connect nouns, as in prozeugma, or a noun adjectives and adjectival phrases ...
[Andrea Nye quote]

Trivium is a delightful volume, very helpful to me in understanding the historical context of language, especially the fine grains of ours though some sections can be tiresome; it's a textbook at heart, after all. It has companion volumes, Quadrivium being perhaps the closest.

 

[SimonDoom]

Trivium is a delightful volume, very helpful to me in understanding the historical context of language, especially the fine grains of ours though some sections can be tiresome; it's a textbook at heart, after all. It has companion volumes, Quadrivium being perhaps the closest.

That makes more sense of things. That book takes a more historical approach to the subject. The common modern meaning of "zeugma" seems to emphasize its figure of speech characteristics.

One of the things you'll find from participating in this forum is that some disagreements, particularly those relating to grammar and style, end up being a bunch of people basically agreeing on the substance of something but insisting on describing it differently. I've been guilty of that more than once.

 

[KeithD]

Interesting. That's different from the definitions I've been able to find. It doesn't really make sense to call it a subspecies because diazeugma as you described it is a completely different animal from zeugma in the sense I described it.

I'm not familiar with Trivium, but it sounds interesting.

I'm all for just learning the basics and maintaining a coherent connection with the reader. Until a writer can do that, I don't counsel trying any fancy writing gymnastics--nor do I bother to read them.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm all for just learning the basics and maintaining a coherent connection with the reader. Until a writer can do that, I don't counsel trying any fancy writing gymnastics--nor do I bother to read them.

You and me both. But I think the terms zeugma and diazeugma, while exotic-sounding, describe writing techniques that aren't necessarily that fancy or beyond the capabilities of someone with basic writing skills.

 

[ElectricBlue]

You and me both. But I think the terms zeugma and diazeugma, while exotic-sounding, describe writing techniques that aren't necessarily that fancy or beyond the capabilities of someone with basic writing skills.

I suspect I might on occasion do some of the clever things we yak on about here, but I wouldn't consciously set out to do so, and wouldn't know what they were called if I did. I'd not heard of either of these constructs before this week, so I'm now a little bit older AND a little bit wiser. It's not often that happens .

 

[MetaBob]

Resolution?

I suspect I might on occasion do some of the clever things we yak on about here, but I wouldn't consciously set out to do so, and wouldn't know what they were called if I did.

Me neither, believe it or not. This is the way I've written for years, and liked it that way. Imagine my surprise to stumble across a page in a book that describes exactly what I was doing, actually assigning it a (respectable!) name.

I spent a couple hours editing my forthcoming chapter today, fwiw, which I still expect to submit tomorrow, which usually means it'll get published Saturday morning. Changed a fair number of things in it, actually, and may change more in a final editing pass tomorrow. Expanded some bits, removed extraneous words and commas throughout. But most important for this thread, I believe I unwound what I'd been tripping over in the two sentences I began it with, removing the extraneous word "four" and then resolving to my present satisfaction (though that could still change) the tense issue, which I now believe falls out as:

It was soothing --> dreading
vs.
I dreaded it

One sentence, two subjects, different tenses. No wonder I kept tripping over it.

In my current version there's only the one sentence where I might consider a change beyond what I've already done, but I believe I've successfully reconciled the tense issue. Doubtless some will remain vocally unhappy with the result, but, honestly, I don't care ... it's coming out the way I want it.

Many thanks to all for your contributions here, positive and negative. I learned something from all of them.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Last edited by MetaBob : Today at 10:07 AM. Reason: Replaced an unnecessary vulgarity and added thanks at the end.

Every vulgarity is necessary and satisfying at the the time of expletion. Wisdom is knowing when one shouldn't press Send.

I too have just submitted my latest, after running my final editor's eye over it. It has a shit-ton of semi-colons all through it. Don't tell me what to do, motherfucker!**

** Too much wisdom in one day is too much .

 

[KeithD]

Does it have semicolons too, and maybe too many hyphens?

 

[ElectricBlue]

Does it have semicolons too, and maybe too many hyphens?

See what I mean? I don't know the rules .

 

[Hypoxia]

See what I mean? I don't know the rules .

You're too tense. Relax. Dream of em-dashes soaring over a rainbow. Or that soared over a rainbow. Or that would have soared. Or are just sore.

 

[KeithD]

You're too tense. Relax. Dream of em-dashes soaring over a rainbow.

You can even dream of em dashes (without using too many erroneous hyphens).

 

[MetaBob]

Does it have semicolons too, and maybe too many hyphens?

It might have a few semicolons. I won't bother to check that, I don't use many.

This site doesn't seem to use hyphens at all even though I use more than a few of them in my usual writing. Thanks for noticing. My hyphens seem to get translated to dashes here, just as my indents get translated to paragraph breaks. Ah well, though perhaps I'm not paying close enough attention to the difference.

Hyphens, ellipses, semicolons. To me, the choice to use one or the other is often a matter of ... choice.