Is This Or Is This Not An English Sentence:

[rosco rathbone]

"The morning after, he'd wanted to die, but that had more to do with the incredible hangover and the tongue-lashing he'd woken to when an irate Elizabeth, whose sympathy for him had vanished when she was forced to hand over forty dollars to pay a bar bill when she "wasn't even friggin' drinking, because I bought my friggin' car."

And if not, should the writer be excused on the grounds that they are making stylistic innovations?

 

[TheEarl]

It is a correct English sentence. However, it's a little bit confusing to read and, to my eyes, tries to do too much. Stylistic innovations be damned; anything which makes it hard for the brain to follow shouldn't be there.

I'd prefer:

"The morning after, he'd wanted to die. Granted, that had more to do with the incredible hangover and the tongue-lashing he'd woken to from an irate Elizabeth, whose sympathy for him had vanished when she was forced to hand over forty dollars to pay a bar bill when she "wasn't even friggin' drinking, because I bought my friggin' car."

The Earl

 

[jomar]

"The morning after, he'd wanted to die, but that had more to do with the incredible hangover and the tongue-lashing he'd woken to when an irate Elizabeth, whose sympathy for him had vanished when she was forced to hand over forty dollars to pay a bar bill when she "wasn't even friggin' drinking, because I bought my friggin' car."

And if not, should the writer be excused on the grounds that they are making stylistic innovations?

All I know is that it should be 'brought' not 'bought'. It totally yanked me out of the sentence.

 

[rosco rathbone]

It is a correct English sentence. However, it's a little bit confusing to read and, to my eyes, tries to do too much. Stylistic innovations be damned; anything which makes it hard for the brain to follow shouldn't be there.

I'd prefer:

"The morning after, he'd wanted to die. Granted, that had more to do with the incredible hangover and the tongue-lashing he'd woken to from an irate Elizabeth, whose sympathy for him had vanished when she was forced to hand over forty dollars to pay a bar bill when she "wasn't even friggin' drinking, because I bought my friggin' car."

The Earl

Fuck, you are right.

I'd read the damn thing 10 times and I just got it.

OK, it's a real sentence, but not a good one!

 

[rosco rathbone]

Wait. What clause does that first "when" refer to?

 

[fifty5]

"The morning after, he'd wanted to die, but that had more to do with the incredible hangover and the tongue-lashing he'd woken to when an irate Elizabeth, whose sympathy for him had vanished when she was forced to hand over forty dollars to pay a bar bill when she "wasn't even friggin' drinking, because I bought my friggin' car."

Not quite. There are an odd number of quotation marks - so the quote isn't closed - and the comma after "Elizabeth" is parenthetical and that parenthesis is also unclosed.

As a minor typo, I think that, "I bought my friggin' car" should be "I bRought my friggin' car"...

To solve the first one, just drop the opening quote mark. To solve the other, I think you need more words - another clause - "when an irate Elizabeth ... blah blah ... had given him what for." Or something like that.

It might be easier to start over...

 

[rosco rathbone]

WHen an irate Elizabeth comma subordinate clause blah blah blah WHAT?

 

[sr71plt]

It's more American than English, but, that said, no it isn't a complete sentence. It breaks down about three-quarters of the way through where you leave the "when" of whatever an irate Elizabeth did hanging. When you take that last long clause out, you have, ". . . he'd woken to when an irate Elizabeth because I bought my friggin' car." When Elizabeth what?

It's too much of a mouthful for a reader to follow, though. For starters, I'd end a first sentence with "he'd wanted to die," and start a new one with "But that had more . . ." (Publishing has no trouble starting sentences with "but" or "and.")

You're on your own on whatever Elizabeth did, however--there's no clue to that in what you've provided.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Not quite. There are an odd number of quotation marks - so the quote isn't closed - and the comma after "Elizabeth" is parenthetical and that parenthesis is also unclosed.

As a minor typo, I think that, "I bought my friggin' car" should be "I bRought my friggin' car"...

To solve the first one, just drop the opening quote mark. To solve the other, I think you need more words - another clause - "when an irate Elizabeth ... blah blah ... had given him what for." Or something like that.

It might be easier to start over...

I typed it exactly as it was printed in the book.

According to the blurb under the author photo, this person holds a degree in Journalism from Carleton University "and has been a full time professional print and web writer since 1998".

 

[sr71plt]

I typed it exactly as it was printed in the book.

According to the blurb under the author photo, this person holds a degree in Journalism from Carleton University "and has been a full time professional print and web writer since 1998".

Oh, shit. Why do folks do that to other folks? I'd take time to help a writer try to get it right. It's a waste of time, however, to serve the smug "look what they did wrong in a book." Mistakes like that get through the process. So what? What does that have to do with your writing?

 

[Stella_Omega]

"The morning after, he'd wanted to die, but that had more to do with the incredible hangover and the tongue-lashing he'd woken to when an irate Elizabeth, whose sympathy for him had vanished when she was forced to hand over forty dollars to pay a bar bill when she "wasn't even friggin' drinking, because I bought my friggin' car."

And if not, should the writer be excused on the grounds that they are making stylistic innovations?

No stylistic innovations there.

I noticed exactly what srplt did-- "when Elizabeth what?"

 

[fifty5]

I typed it exactly as it was printed in the book.

According to the blurb under the author photo, this person holds a degree in Journalism from Carleton University "and has been a full time professional print and web writer since 1998".

Sorry, I thought it was your own work on which you wanted an opinion. My opinion stands (FWIW). Full time professionals (and maybe especially journos) still don't necessarily get things right, even if their language is effective.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Oh, shit. Why do folks do that to other folks? I'd take time to help a writer try to get it right. It's a waste of time, however, to serve the smug "look what they did wrong in a book." Mistakes like that get through the process. So what? What does that have to do with your writing?

I guess I have an overly idealistic notion of "the process".

 

[starrkers]

Oh, shit. Why do folks do that to other folks? I'd take time to help a writer try to get it right. It's a waste of time, however, to serve the smug "look what they did wrong in a book." Mistakes like that get through the process. So what? What does that have to do with your writing?

Perhaps that particular author needs to not bang their gong about their level of professionalism.
They have no more qualifications than I, but I wouldn't be silly enough to hold mine up as some proof of great penmanship.

I might also lynch either my blurb writer or my editor.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I made this thread because I was arguing with someone about the sentence in question.

She said that while it may or may not have been a real sentence, it might be excused on grounds of stylistic innovation.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I made this thread because I was arguing with someone about the sentence in question.

She said that while it may or may not have been a real sentence, it might be excused on grounds of stylistic innovation.

How did it seem in context?

"Ulysses" it ain't.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

How did it seem in context?

"Ulysses" it ain't.

And if it were, it still wouldn't be a decent sentence.


Elementary school teacher,

 

[sr71plt]

I guess I have an overly idealistic notion of "the process".

I'll try to remember you and not waste my time to try to help you with your writing in the future. It gives you some sense of superiority to find mistakes in print?

 

[TheEarl]

How did it seem in context?

"Ulysses" it ain't.

You're right; it's better than Ulysses. Cannot stand that book. Admittedly, I haven't ever read it all, but that's because I took a couple of goes at it and decided that I didn't hate myself that much.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Well, I'd like to know if he enjoyed Elizabeth's tongue lashing.

That, and whether or not they ever decided to fuck.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, I'd like to know if he enjoyed Elizabeth's tongue lashing.

That, and whether or not they ever decided to fuck.

That's what I love about you, Sarah, you have a clear set of priorities!

 

[TheEarl]

I'll try to remember you and not waste my time to try to help you with your writing in the future. It gives you some sense of superiority to find mistakes in print?

I thought it was a genuinely sensible request; one learns as much from the mistakes of others as from one's own.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

That's what I love about you, Sarah, you have a clear set of priorities!

Thanking you very much.

Well, the sentence is silly and needlessly long. But rosco came to the AH for help from we supposed experts, I imagine. Why bash him because he didn't write the thing?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I didn't. And I agree that the sentence is clumsy and obscure. Perhaps the "professional" needed an editor. Or the editor needed help!

 

[Guest]

I didn't. And I agree that the sentence is clumsy and obscure. Perhaps the "professional" needed an editor. Or the editor needed help!

Yes - I should have ended the quote or posted separately.

I apologize, ya furball.