0
Mickey Mouse 8241 Posted 9 years ago
Grammar

"There is evidence that the wave reached a height of 80 feet(24 meters) when coming ashore along the coastline

Are all of these three sentences correct grammatically?


"There is evidence that the wave reached a height of 80 feet(24 meters) when coming ashore along the coastline and rose to 100 feet (30 meters) in some areas when travelling inland."



"There is evidence that the wave reached a height of 80 feet(24 meters) when coming ashore along the coastline and that the wave rose to 100 feet (30 meters) in some areas when travelling inland."



"There is evidence that the wave reached a height of 80 feet(24 meters) when coming ashore along the coastline and the wave rose to 100 feet (30 meters) in some areas when travelling inland."


  

Top answer

#1 Fine #2 Fine, but don't repeat the word 'wave'. Instead, say 'it'. #3 is not wrong, but the phrase 'there is evidence that' does not clearly apply to the second part.

— Clive

  • #1 Fine #2 Fine, but don't repeat the word 'wave'.
  • Instead, say 'it'.
  • #3 is not wrong, but the phrase 'there is evidence that' does not clearly apply to the second part.
  • __ Do you need to say 'along the coastline'?
Free · every Monday

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.

8 Answers
0

#1 Fine

#2 Fine, but don't repeat the word 'wave'. Instead, say 'it'.

#3 is not wrong, but the phrase 'there is evidence that' does not clearly apply to the second part.

__

Do you need to say 'along the coastline'?

0
0
Clive#2 Fine, but don't repeat the word 'wave'. Instead, say 'it'.

In this case we have two evidence? Isn't is redundant? one for reached the height and second for rose to 100 meters?

Clive#1 Fine

Thanks for your reply.

So In #1, Do the phrase "There is ev

0
0
CliveDo you need to say 'along the coastline'?

I don't understand clearly what you meant.

0
0

So In #1, does the phrase "There is evidence that" apply to the second part? I would say 'yes'.

0
0
CliveDo you need to say 'along the coastline'?

I don't understand clearly what you meant. If you say 'coming ashore', doesn't that mean the wave was at the coastline?'


0
0
Clive#3 is not wrong, but the phrase 'there is evidence that' does not clearly apply to the second part.

Is it necessary the phrase 'there is evidence' that apply to the second part as well?or it would be wrong if does not apply?

I mean we say : " There is evidence that A and B, not there is evidence that A and there is evidence that B.

0
0

I prefer "There is evidence that the wave reached a height of 80 feet(24 meters) when coming ashore along the coastline and that it rose to 100 feet (30 meters) in some areas when travelling inland."


This small change makes it clearer that the second part is based on evidence and is not just an assertion.


0
0
Mickey Mouse 8241Is it necessary that the phrase 'there is evidence' that applies to the second part as well?

No, it depends on the facts of the situation. If there was only evidence for the first part, and no evidence for the second, you can say that.


From the point of concept I meant if there

0

Related Questions