Is this grammatical?

Question

The glasses no longer have crappy read and green lenses, instead having clear lenses.The glasses have clear lenses, not red and green lenses, like the old crappy ones.The glasses have clear lenses, and they don't have crappy red and green lenses as they used to.The glasses have clear lenses, instead of the former crappy red and green lenses.Are all grammatical?Which is the best and why?Finally, would you say the underlined phrase is an appositive of lenses, or simply the negated direct object?Thanks a lot.

TrysB · Accepted Answer

Hi 1b3,
In sentence 1, you cannot say 'instead having' which is incorrect. You could have used a clause with 'but' like this: The glasses no longer have crappy red and green lenses, but rather clear ones. That works pretty well.

Sentence 2 is OK, although I would omit the comma after the second lenses and place a comma after old. I think the noun phrase not red and green lenses is an appositive to lenses because it is descriptive of the lenses, telling the reader what they are not. However, I am not the world's best grammarian, so you had better get someone else to answer that.

Sentence 3 is not right because you can't attach these two sentences with and. You could say: The glasses have clear lenses, not the crappy red and green ones they used to have.

Sentence 4 works ok, but I would take out the word lenses at the end and just say red and green ones. Now it is the best sentence-~~simple and clear~~-like the lenses.

Best regards,
TrysB

TrysB · Answer

My last sentence should not have a strikethrough and I don't know why it did except that i put em dashes on either side of the words 'simple and clear' and maybe that is somehow interpreted as strikethrough by the html editor. Let me try it again:

This sentence is simple and clear, like the last one.

This sentence is-~~simple and clear~~-like the last one.

TrysB

English 1b3 · Answer

Hi, TrysB

I agree with what you say, except for the first example.

I read the same construction (instead having) in another sentence and also had doubts about whether it was grammatical or not, but I then came across another example of this constrution, making me think it is correct.

Have you an explanation/reason for your answer? Perhaps then I will be convinced

Thanks for your time.

TrysB · Answer

I'm not very good at grammatical explanations, but I'll try. First, sentence one uses two different verb forms, have and having. I think the two parts of the sentence should have parallel forms.

Second, to me, the construction instead having just sounds wrong. Normally it would be instead of having. But it still sounds very awkward in that sentence. Just because it is technically possible to use a particular sentence construction doesn't mean that you should use it. Grammar rules are not always like equations in engineering where you can calculate values to the fifth decimal place.

Just because you find several examples of a particular type of sentence, does not prove that it is correct. If you have to fight so hard to make the sentence work a certain way, then that should tell you that it is probably better to try a different construction.

I hope someone else will answer you so we can get another opinion.

I am glad that you take language seriously. That's a sign of a really good student.

All the best,
TrysB

Yankee · Answer

English 1b3I read the same construction (instead having) in another sentence and also had doubts about whether it was grammatical or not, but I then came across another example of this constrution, making me think it is correct.

Hi English 1b3
TrysB has given you some good input. It is easy to say that you've seen the same construction elsewhere. However, without posting the specific sentences you say you've seen, you make it impossible for anyone to comment on them, or to explain why one sentence might work but your sentence doesn't. For all we know, the two sentences you are referring to could have had simple typographical errors.

Khoff · Answer

Okay, I understand intellectually that it can be worth discussing the grammar of a sentence completely apart from its content.   However, my personal reaction was that I was so put off by the word "crappy" that I really didn't care whether or not the grammar was correct -- or, more to the point, I was somewhat surprised that anyone who used the word "crappy" cared about appositives and negated direct objects and making sure the sentence was grammatically correct. It seems like a contradiction in style to me.  Did anyone else have this reaction, or I am just being oversensitive?

Yankee · Answer

khoffIt seems like a contradiction in style to me.

Yes, I got that feeling too.

English 1b3 · Answer

I didn't write the sentence, so I didn't get to choose whether 'crappy' was in the sentence or not sorry.

All I know is that a participle phrase often ends a sentence, following a verb phrase.

Above is an example:

A participle phrase often ends a sentence, following a verb phase.

It could be parallel as mentioned above as an idea for the sentence in discussion:

A participle phrase often ends a sentence and follows a verb phase.

However, the participle phrase just gives the writer a different option so that he or she doesn't have compound predicate after compound predicate. There are other reasons why the participle phrase is used.

Adverbials, such as insteadin the sentence we are discussing, often head participle phrases. This is why I'm confused as to why you guys think it is incorrect: this is just an adverbial heading a participle phrase that could also be a second verb phrase. Does anyone apart from me see my point

Cheers

Andriy Lapin · Answer

Greetings, English 1b3,

let me begin by characterising each sentence you mention and then laying my case for the correctness/incorrectness of each utterance:

1. The glasses no longer have crappy read and green lenses, instead having clear lenses. - grammatically correct, though deplorable stylistically, since 'crappy' is vulgar slang, as noted previously;

2. The glasses have clear lenses, not red and green lenses, like the old crappy ones. - poor punctuation; as noted by TrysB, the second comma should be shifted to the position between the two adjectives characterising 'ones' - this reinforcing use of comma to list 'old+crappy' supports gradation that these premodifiers create.

3. The glasses have clear lenses, and they don't have crappy red and green lenses as they used to. - the whole structure sounds heavy and cumbersome due to the (unnecessary) repetition of virtually the same idea made in the second coordinated clause. Rephrasing by TrysB is preferable - the second part of the original sentence sounds to me more like a piece of parenthetical information, something additional, something only further disclosing the proposition of the first coordinate. Therefore, it has poor communicative value of its own.

4. The glasses have clear lenses, instead of the former crappy red and green lenses. - in all respects, this is by far the most successful rewording of all four, but note that substitution of lenses at the end with the pro-form ones would eliminate unnecessary repetition (as previously pointed out).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Apposition is our concern now. Dear friend, for noun phrases to be appositives, they must be identical in reference. Talking either about full or partial opposition, we always keep in mind that several criteria should be met: 1. Each of the appositives can be left out without affecting the overall meaning of the sentence; 2. Each one should fulfil the same syntactic functions; 3. In extralinguistic context, there should be no difference between the two resulting sentences and the original one. By trying each of the tree criteria in practice, try to define whether they are the same or not. That comma in the second part that was originally misplaced probably distracts you, so attempt to reconsider the phrase in your mind. I can tell you what these two phrases are: conjoins joined asyndetically, and this, as you probably know, excludes apposition.

Finally, the 'instead' question. Despite the fact that the majority of participants to this thread condemned the use of 'instead' in similar positions (calling it unnatural), I suppose that we should analyse the possibilities from a strictly grammatical viewpoint. Thus, according to corpora analysis, contrastive antithetic conjuncts may occur in initial, medial, and final position in a clause. The following are examples with 'instead' from newspaper journalism and spoken usage that unambiguously show the acceptability of 'instead + -ing participle clause':

Claiming the charges politically were motivated, Wahid refused to appear, instead issuing a directive to "freeze" the MPR, the House of Representatives, DPR, and the Golkar party, and to hold new elections, exceeding his authority under the Constitution.

In the Catholic priest *** scandal, almost as shocking as the acts themselves was the way the local dioceses refused to take responsibility for their clergymen, instead shuffling them more frantically than a croupier with obsessive compulsive disorder.

+

She never married, preferring instead to remain single.

+

In past years, banks have loaned very conservatively, preferring to invest in high yielding government treasury bills instead.

As you can observe, 'instead' is possible in three different positions, but in the given example, given the shortness of the -ing clause, it is most reasonable to place the adverb finally:

The glasses no longer have crappy red and green lenses, having clear lenses instead.

<one possible improvement, in addition, can be to change one of the verbs in any clause so that to avoid repetition>

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff

English 1b3 · Answer

Hi, Gleb:

Thanks for your thorough analysis/answer. I am glad to see I was right with the participle phrase headed with 'instead.'

With regard to your comments on apposition, was the phrase in fact an appositive therefore? By asking the three conditions, it appears so; however, could it not just be a second direct object that is negated, like this:

I want this, not that.

I suppose one could argue that this is also an appositive, but I am more inclined to say this is a second direct object or something (I'm not sure if there is a name for it).

What do you think?

Also, what did you mean by this?

one possible improvement, in addition, can be to change one of the verbs in any clause so that to avoid repetition>

Thanks again.

Is this grammatical?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions