"Implicit" verb

[tomlitilia]

Not sure what the correct term is, and I guess that's part of my question. Consider a sentence like this:
"Catherine stopped on the fifth floor and Bob on the sixth." In the second part of the sentence, the verb "stopped" is understood to apply also to what Bob does. Is there a technical term for this type of construction?

And what are the correct punctuation rules? If Bob had done something other than stopped, I would have separated the independent clauses with comma, e.g. as in "Catherine stopped on the fifth floor, and Bob farted on the sixth." But it looks off if I put a comma in the first example sentence.

 

[SynSlave]

Not sure what the correct term is, and I guess that's part of my question. Consider a sentence like this:
"Catherine stopped on the fifth floor and Bob on the sixth." In the second part of the sentence, the verb "stopped" is understood to apply also to what Bob does. Is there a technical term for this type of construction?

And what are the correct punctuation rules? If Bob had done something other than stopped, I would have separated the independent clauses with comma, e.g. as in "Catherine stopped on the fifth floor, and Bob farted on the sixth." But it looks off if I put a comma in the first example sentence.

I personally struggle with this as well and sometimes opt to employ an emphasis when I feel it's needed with an em dash or semi-colon.

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; and Bob on the sixth.
Catherine stopped on the fifth floor--Bob on the sixth.

But that's more style than grammar. And I don't proclaim to be an expert but I don't think it's wrong as is.

Catherine looked at Allison at second base and Peggy at third. Sounds fine to me.

 

[OneAuthor]

"Catherine stopped on the fifth floor and Bob on the sixth."

Not sure of the technical term for this, but it looks fine to me. I don't believe a comma is necessary.

 

[SimonDoom]

Not sure what the correct term is, and I guess that's part of my question. Consider a sentence like this:
"Catherine stopped on the fifth floor and Bob on the sixth." In the second part of the sentence, the verb "stopped" is understood to apply also to what Bob does. Is there a technical term for this type of construction?

And what are the correct punctuation rules? If Bob had done something other than stopped, I would have separated the independent clauses with comma, e.g. as in "Catherine stopped on the fifth floor, and Bob farted on the sixth." But it looks off if I put a comma in the first example sentence.

This is an example of use of an elliptical clause -- a clause in which the verb is omitted in the second clause because it duplicates the verb in the first clause (the noun "floor" also is omitted).

I think the "right" way to do it is to punctuate it as though you wrote it out fully, so you would insert a comma after the word "floor." But if you leave off the comma because you think it looks or reads better I don't think anyone is going to notice it or fault you for it.

You also could do it with a semicolon:

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; Bob on the sixth.

 

[KeithD]

"Catherine stopped on the fifth floor and Bob on the sixth."

Not sure of the technical term for this, but it looks fine to me. I don't believe a comma is necessary.

Yep, the original example is fine. I don't know a term for the construction either.

 

[NotWise]

This is an example of use of an elliptical clause -- a clause in which the verb is omitted in the second clause because it duplicates the verb in the first clause (the noun "floor" also is omitted).

There's nothing wrong with elliptical clauses as far as I've read, but I tend to avoid them as a matter of personal style. To me, it's a little bit of shorthand that is easily understood by the writer and maybe not so easily followed by the reader. To each their own.

 

[KeithD]

If I had this in a book edit (and I'm a trained book editor), I would strike out the semicolon. They aren't used this way. I'd leave the m dash, if that's the way the author wanted it, but I'd grumble a bit. The original example is just fine.

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; and Bob on the sixth.
Catherine stopped on the fifth floor--Bob on the sixth.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I personally struggle with this as well and sometimes opt to employ an emphasis when I feel it's needed with an em dash or semi-colon.

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; and Bob on the sixth.

That isn't correct grammar...

You also could do it with a semicolon:

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; Bob on the sixth.

...but that is.

The normal use* of a semicolon is to separate two independent clauses - i.e. things that have the grammatical structure of a complete sentence.

"Catherine stopped on the fifth floor" is a complete sentence, as is "Bob stopped on the sixth floor", so both of those are independent clauses. "Bob on the sixth" is still an independent clause because we're intended to read it as "Bob [stopped] on the sixth [floor]".

"and Bob stopped on the sixth floor" is not a complete sentence - "and" is a conjunction which needs to be attached to two things, and here only one of them is present.

*There are some other cases where semicolons are used, but not relevant here.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; Bob, on the sixth.

The semi-colon takes the place of the conjunction "fifth floor; and" is redundant.

 

[SimonDoom]

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; Bob, on the sixth.

The semi-colon takes the place of the conjunction "fifth floor; and" is redundant.

I think the comma after "Bob" is not right. There's no need for a comma there. It does not serve a grammatical purpose.

 

[SimonDoom]

That isn't correct grammar...



...but that is.

The normal use* of a semicolon is to separate two independent clauses - i.e. things that have the grammatical structure of a complete sentence.

"Catherine stopped on the fifth floor" is a complete sentence, as is "Bob stopped on the sixth floor", so both of those are independent clauses. "Bob on the sixth" is still an independent clause because we're intended to read it as "Bob [stopped] on the sixth [floor]".

"and Bob stopped on the sixth floor" is not a complete sentence - "and" is a conjunction which needs to be attached to two things, and here only one of them is present.

*There are some other cases where semicolons are used, but not relevant here.

I agree with this. There are two ways to combine independent clauses in a single sentence. One is with a comma and a conjunction like "and." The other is with a semicolon and no conjunction. Sometimes, with the semicolon, one adds a conjunctive adverb like "however."

Thus:

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; Bob, however, stopped on the sixth floor. ["However" is a conjunctive adverb in this example]

Using elliptical clauses is a nice and concise way to eliminate excess words. But the punctuation ideally should track the way the sentence would be written if it WERE NOT using an elliptical clause.

So:

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor, and Bob on the sixth. [comma + conjunction]

OR

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; Bob on the sixth. [semicolon + no conjunction]

I tend to agree with KeithD that stylistically you can get away with putting a comma in place of the semicolon in the second example and you'll do just fine, even though it's a comma splice. Comma splices can be OK where the clauses are very short.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I think the comma after "Bob" is not right. There's no need for a comma there. It does not serve a grammatical purpose.

In this particular case (an elliptical or truncated clause) the comma is used to signify the missing word - stopped. You would be correct in this sentence:

Catherine stopped on the fifth floor; Bob stopped on the sixth.

 

[SimonDoom]

In this particular case (an elliptical or truncated clause) the comma is used to signify the missing word - stopped. You would be correct in this sentence:

.

Initially, I thought you were wrong about this, but after a little research I think you are right. I don't think the comma is always necessary in this case, but it seems to be the preferred way to do it.

 

[Paul_Chance]

Yeah, a lot of modern grammar (as reflected in style books) is basic rules plus preferences.

My general rule when writing is this: If I am questioning the grammar, then I should rewrite the sentence. Errors and oddities in grammar poke the reader in the eye.

 

[MetaBob]

"Catherine stopped on the fifth floor and Bob on the sixth." In the second part of the sentence, the verb "stopped" is understood to apply also to what Bob does. Is there a technical term for this type of construction?

Yes. The technical term for this type of construction is zeugma ("sharing a yoke"). I could get into specifics, but others here might pitch a(nother) fit if I did.