A Grammar Question, please

[TarnishedPenny]

Working on a story which involves a description of some odd individuals. It includes the sentence: Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others were brilliantly dyed in an array of vivid colours.

It just doesn't look quite right. If the first group are wearing their hair, what about the other half? "...the others' hair was brilliantly dyed..." seems artificial somehow.

I'm tired of wrestling with it and would appreciate some suggestions.

Thanks.

 

[KeithD]

The hair of some was in normal human shades; that of others was brilliantly dyed in an array of vivid colours.

In the original, technically the people were dyed in vivid colours.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

I think you have an incorrect parallelism with a dangling modifier, two valencies around a transitive verb and cumulative adjectives where one is doubling as an adverb (brilliantly dyed). Keith already pointed out the fallacy in the result: it may read like the people were dyed vivid colors. A couple of other options in addition to Keith's suggestion:

* Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others wore theirs dyed in an array of vivid, brilliant colors.

* Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others wore theirs in brilliantly dyed, vivid colors.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Another option:

Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others had it dyed in an array of vivid, brilliant colors.

 

[SimonDoom]

I like Vix's suggestions because it keeps your original first clause, which is good, and the suggestions are in active voice.

Some additional suggestions:

Some wore their hair in normal shades; others, in vivid colors, brilliantly dyed.

This preserves parallelism, but it's a bit shorter because the verb is omitted. It's what you call an elliptical construction. I think it's OK with or without the comma after "others." Or you could just use "wore theirs" as Vix suggests.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

I like Vix's suggestions because it keeps your original first clause, which is good, and the suggestions are in active voice.

Some additional suggestions:

Some wore their hair in normal shades; others, in vivid colors, brilliantly died.

This preserves parallelism, but it's a bit shorter because the verb is omitted. It's what you call an elliptical construction. I think it's OK with or without the comma after "others." Or you could just use "wore theirs" as Vix suggests.

That solves it. And exactly as Simon pointed out, you don’t need “wore” again; it was already implied.

 

[MetaBob]

Working on a story which involves a description of some odd individuals. It includes the sentence:

Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others were brilliantly dyed in an array of vivid colours.

It just doesn't look quite right. If the first group are wearing their hair, what about the other half? "...the others' hair was brilliantly dyed..." seems artificial somehow.

I'm tired of wrestling with it and would appreciate some suggestions, that way lies conflict, apparently.

Thanks.

Oh dear, a grammar question. What, have I not learned from the last time(s) I attempted to help?

Several [very!] minor things jump out at me. First, you could let it go and it would still be solid. I will not attempt specific suggestions; maybe I've learned better.

"wore"
"normal human shades"
"others"[!]
"an array of"

I think the thing that's bugging you is the uncertainty about what "others" refers to. To me, there seem to be three possibilities: "Some," "hair," and "shades."

I prefer economy of words. Some here seem unnecessary even as flavoring. That's my angle, my bias. It's OK if you don't share it. Gut tells me these 18 words could be cut to about 12.

Think out loud if you have to. I can stay if that'll help, though it might take a couple days.

Pre-post update: I like Simon's suggestion, but also think it could be better.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Thanks, all. Appreciate the suggestions.

(Vix, yes, I knew it didn’t fly, hence it being a grammar question just wording.)

 

[SimonDoom]

The only thing I don't like about my suggestion, and about Vix's second suggestion, is that "brilliantly dyed" should modify "hair", not "colors", but that's not clear with the way we've written it. I like having "brilliantly dyed" in there, or some version of that phrase, because I think the sentence is flat without it. But I can't quite figure out what the perfect solution is.

 

[MetaBob]

Oh dear, a grammar question. What, have I not learned from the last time(s) I attempted to help?

Several [very!] minor things jump out at me. First, you could let it go and it would still be solid. I will not attempt specific suggestions; maybe I've learned better.

"wore"
"normal human shades"
"others"[!]
"an array of"

I think the thing that's bugging you is the uncertainty about what "others" refers to. To me, there seem to be three possibilities: "Some," "hair," and "shades."

I prefer economy of words. Some here seem unnecessary even as flavoring. That's my angle, my bias. It's OK if you don't share it. Gut tells me these 18 words could be cut to about 12.

Think out loud if you have to. I can stay if that'll help, though it might take a couple days.

Pre-post update: I like Simon's suggestion, but also think it could be better.

OK, fine, with less punctuation, this time gradually incorporating Vix_Giovanni's previous suggestions:

Some wore their hair in natural colors, others vivid and brilliant. [Meh!]

... [their] hair in colors from natural to vivid and brilliant.

... [their] hair in colors natural, vivid, brilliant.

Ask yourself: who are "they?" Do you need to refer to them collectively, or just note a couple individuals (perhaps as representative)?

Food for thought. Out.

 

[SimonDoom]

OK, fine, with less punctuation, this time gradually incorporating Vix_Giovanni's previous suggestions:

Some wore their hair in natural colors, others vivid and brilliant. [Meh!]

... [their] hair in colors from natural to vivid and brilliant.

... [their] hair in colors natural, vivid, brilliant.

Ask yourself: who are "they?" Do you need to refer to them collectively, or just note a couple individuals (perhaps as representative)?

Food for thought. Out.

But the problem with this is you've completely eliminated the parallel construction of TP's original sentence, which is what she wanted to keep. I like TP's original concept of putting these two clauses together. It gives the writing zip. The trick -- and it is tricky -- is figuring out how to do it right.

As far as who "they" are: I assume there's a sentence or two before this one that makes clear who "some" and "others" are.

 

[MetaBob]

But the problem with this is you've completely eliminated the parallel construction of TP's original sentence, which is what she wanted to keep. I like TP's original concept of putting these two clauses together. It gives the writing zip. The trick -- and it is tricky -- is figuring out how to do it right.

As far as who "they" are: I assume there's a sentence or two before this one that makes clear who "some" and "others" are.

Simon, read the original quote, the reason we're both responding here, please. Jeez, you probably won't and I'll have to spoon-feed it later, so I guess I'll do it now to preempt histrionics, if that's possible. Emphasis mine:

Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others were brilliantly dyed in an array of vivid colours.

 

[SimonDoom]

Simon, read the original quote, the reason we're both responding here, please. Jeez, you probably won't and I'll have to spoon-feed it later, so I guess I'll do it now to preempt histrionics, if that's possible. Emphasis mine:

I did. No spoon feeding needed, although sometimes I can be slow. But I was responding to your last post, not your first one. Specifically:

Some wore their hair in natural colors, others vivid and brilliant. [Meh!]

... [their] hair in colors from natural to vivid and brilliant.

... [their] hair in colors natural, vivid, brilliant.

I understood you to be suggesting these last two as alternatives. If that's not what you meant, then I misunderstood. These last two eliminate the parallel/dual clause construction that TP started with.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Give them all hats and solve the problem completely .

 

[MetaBob]

Yes, you did make an exceedingly silly statement:

I assume there's a sentence or two before this one that makes clear who "some" and "others" are.

... when the context was:

Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others were brilliantly dyed in an array of vivid colours.

It just doesn't look quite right.

Moving on, several of us have suggested alternatives to the OP's sentence, including you. I complimented yours but thought it could be better, then suggested three alternatives:

Some wore their hair in natural colors, others vivid and brilliant. [Meh!]

... [their] hair in colors from natural to vivid and brilliant.

... [their] hair in colors natural, vivid, brilliant.

You stated that:

These last two eliminate the parallel/dual clause construction that TP started with.

Whether this is important is a question for the OP: is it important to separate the people s/he sees?:

If the first group are wearing their hair, what about the other half?

Not knowing the context, I urged:

Ask yourself: who are "they?" Do you need to refer to them collectively, or just note a couple individuals (perhaps as representative)?

The concise alternatives I suggested would serve in either case, just as others would. I trust that there is no further cause to nitpick.

Food for thought. Out.

 

[Josh323804]

Ha - great that an entire book of grammar could be written on a single sentence!

For what it's worth - don't overthink it - if the sentences around are short and clear, this one won't feel as though you're drowning in a sea of words.

I would say two adjectives is a little otiose. "Some wore their hair in normal shades" is good, or, depending on context "Some wore their hair in human shades"

The other half - I think the issue is the multiple homophones. "in an array". I'm also slightly unclear as to whether you mean the individual people have an array of colours in their hair, or whether the crowd look like an array of vivid colours. Also - brilliantly dyed - doubled up the "vivid colours"

How about something like;

Some wore their hair in normal shades, while others were dyed in brilliant colours

??

 

[SimonDoom]

Ha - great that an entire book of grammar could be written on a single sentence!

For what it's worth - don't overthink it - if the sentences around are short and clear, this one won't feel as though you're drowning in a sea of words.

I would say two adjectives is a little otiose. "Some wore their hair in normal shades" is good, or, depending on context "Some wore their hair in human shades"

The other half - I think the issue is the multiple homophones. "in an array". I'm also slightly unclear as to whether you mean the individual people have an array of colours in their hair, or whether the crowd look like an array of vivid colours. Also - brilliantly dyed - doubled up the "vivid colours"

How about something like;

Some wore their hair in normal shades, while others were dyed in brilliant colours

??

It may seem a bit silly to fuss so much over a single sentence, but I think it's a useful discussion. It draws attention to the fact that seemingly minor edits have big impacts, if you pay attention.


The problem with your revision is that it reads like the people are dyed, rather than the hair. I don't think that's what you want to say.

 

[Vix_Giovanni]

Thanks, all. Appreciate the suggestions.

(Vix, yes, I knew it didn’t fly, hence it being a grammar question just wording.)

Sorry, TP; I don’t mean at all to imply that you need a grammar lesson. I only meant to spell out the logic behind my suggestions so others could fix what I might muck up

Ha - great that an entire book of grammar could be written on a single sentence!

For what it's worth - don't overthink it - if the sentences around are short and clear, this one won't feel as though you're drowning in a sea of words.

I would say two adjectives is a little otiose. "Some wore their hair in normal shades" is good, or, depending on context "Some wore their hair in human shades"

The other half - I think the issue is the multiple homophones. "in an array". I'm also slightly unclear as to whether you mean the individual people have an array of colours in their hair, or whether the crowd look like an array of vivid colours. Also - brilliantly dyed - doubled up the "vivid colours"

How about something like;

Some wore their hair in normal shades, while others were dyed in brilliant colours

??

TP’s is a semantic question, i.e., ensuring the sentence is grammatically understood without other context. It’s a complex and nuanced question, and the same reason you pointed out the sentence is slightly unclear to you is the reason TP’s asked for suggestions.

Your example leaves the grammar issue of the dangling modifier—it still reads like people are dyed brilliant colors, rather than their hair—and reduces the cleverness of the original sentence’s style. There’s nothing grammatically wrong with cumulative adjectives; whether you find them otiose or efficacious is more a matter of personal preference than logomachy.

It seems you were going for a variation on Simon’s suggestion above: Some wore their hair in normal shades; others in vivid colors, brilliantly dyed. Starting there may give you a better basis for your suggestions.

 

[SeabornFare]

Stop trying to rewrite a terrible sentence, and start over.



Josh broke out with otiose and Vix came over the the top with efficacious and logomachy.

This is why I enjoy reading what authors have to say.

 

[Josh323804]

Your example leaves the grammar issue of the dangling modifier—it still reads like people are dyed brilliant colors, rather than their hair—and reduces the cleverness of the original sentence’s style.

That's a fair enough opinion, but I suspect in the context of a story you'd have to be struggling with the momentum of the narrative in order to believe that it was the people and not the hair what were coloured - especially when the hair colour had been mentioned in the first half of the sentance.

It reminds me of that old joke "There's a man at the door with a beard" "What's a door doing with a beard?"

There’s nothing grammatically wrong with cumulative adjectives; whether you find them otiose or efficacious is more a matter of personal preference than logomachy.

Of course. But every single thing you write is a matter of personal preference. There is no objective reality to any form of grammar, only ways of describing previously written language.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

It seems you were going for a variation on Simon’s suggestion above: Some wore their hair in normal shades; others in vivid colors, brilliantly dyed. Starting there may give you a better basis for your suggestions.

I think that’s it.

Oh, and no offence taken earlier.

Thanks again, folks.

 

[ElmerStudd]

Try this

Some wore their hair in normal human shades while others were brilliantly dyed in an array of vivid colors.

 

[hungry4u_man]

...others had theirs brilliantly...

 

[RandyD1369]

Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others were brilliantly dyed in an array of vivid colours.

How about: Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others preferred it brilliantly dyed in vivid primary colors, a few were bald, and the rest wore hats or scarves, but every one of their six-fingered hands was gloved in black Naugahyde. Oh, those poor, pitiful Naugas.

 

[reader3286]

"Some wore their hair in normal human shades; others were brilliantly dyed in an array of vivid colours."

Agreed. Sometimes even though everything is correct, it just does not work. That perception will make you a better writer.

Use different verbs, and restructure the dependent clause. Adding a comment about the thoughts involved may help:

Some chose to use normal (typical?) hair shades, others selected from an alternate (broader) pallet of brillitant, vivid colors mixing to suit their own pleasure.
​

Sometimes it is better to avoid using ta word more than once, in this case, using "chose" then "selected" (both past tense. nice to keep it consistent). Essentially the same impact, but doing so avoids repetition.