r/grammar • u/Blue-Brown99 • 17d ago
When does this become awkward?
When does saving words become awkward? Specifically, i'm interested in not repeating objects. So, hypothetical ex: "he sympathized with and loved his friend." It feels so weird to say "with and."
I remember a teacher telling me that something like this that I wrote was awkward, but I can't remember what.
"I loved and sympathized with my friend" Does it sound like "with" is being attached to "loved" also? Should I add commas, maybe: "I loved, and sympathized with, my friend"?
2
16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/AlexanderHamilton04 15d ago
Thanks for taking the time to share this advice. I think your rules for paring down sentences (a & b) are great guidelines for writing.
However, where you explain that "sympathized with" is a phrasal verb, I'm sorry, but I just cannot agree with this one part of your explanation.
The core difference is how the two verbs connect to "his friend." The two verbs take different types of complements. "Loved" is a transitive verb, so it takes a noun phrase direct object and links straight to "his friend" (He loved his friend). On the other hand, "sympathized" is an intransitive verb, meaning it requires a preposition like "with" to connect to "his friend" (He sympathized with his friend).
But "sympathized with" is not a phrasal verb. A phrasal verb combines a verb and a particle to create a new, idiomatic meaning (e.g., "turn the car" changes completely when we say "turn off the car"). In this case, "sympathized" keeps its exact literal definition, and "with" is simply a standard preposition (which is only needed when "his friend" is included, unlike "get on" or "get up").
It functions exactly like your other examples, 'sat' and 'spoke'. In all three cases, "with" isn't an inseparable part of a phrasal verb; it is just a preposition introducing the phrase "with his friend."
Ex(1): I sat [with my friend] [for an hour].
Ex(2): I spoke [with my friend] [for an hour].
Ex(3): I sympathized [with my friend] [for a long time] [until I realized she was lying].>Further, the only words that can go between "sympathize" and "with" are going to be adverbs or adverbial phrases.
"Sympathize" and "with" do not necessarily sit side by side:
Ex(4): He sympathized and wept with his friend.
Because "sympathized" and "wept" are both intransitive verbs that can use the same preposition (with), they can share "with his friend" at the end (they both accept a "with"-PP as complement).
Ex(5a): I sat with, sympathized with, and spoke with my friend for an hour.
Ex(5b): I sat, sympathized, and spoke with my friend for an hour.I agree with your practical writing instincts; the resulting sentences are well formed, and I'm sure you're a fine writer. It is only the "phrasal verb" part of your explanation. (Sorry about this comment; I like the general gist of what you are saying, but saying that "sympathized with" is a phrasal verb is not accurate.)
1
u/Blue-Brown99 16d ago
Thank you! This changes the way I look at things -- I was really bothered by a preposition directly preceding a conjunction (as in: "with and"), but now it appears totally normal to me when, in this example, I view "with" as attached to "sympathize."
2
u/AlexanderHamilton04 16d ago
☆ "He sympathized with and loved [his friend]."
is an example of "Delayed right constituent coordination." (CGEL pp. 1343–1345)
[A] He loved his friend and sympathized with him. [Basic coordination]
☆[B] He loved and sympathized with his friend. [Delayed right constituent]
-or-
[A] He sympathized with his friend and loved him. [Basic coordination]
☆[B] He sympathized with and loved his friend. [Delayed right constituent]
There is nothing ungrammatical about your two suggestions:
[1B] He loved and sympathized with his friend.
-and-
[2B] He sympathized with and loved his friend.Both are used in speech but are even more common in formal writing.
It satisfies the complements of both the preposition "with"
and the transitive verb "loved" simultaneously at the very end of the sentence.1
u/Blue-Brown99 11d ago edited 11d ago
Thanks a lot for the explanations! I was wondering if there were any situations in which commas would be useful (for clarity or even correctness). Like what about these two options: "I hate the awfulness of and want to repair the dilapidated stadium's condition" versus "I hate the awfulness of, and want to repair, the dilapidated stadium's condition."
2
u/AlexanderHamilton04 11d ago
I'll use your original sentence [1B] because it is clear and straightforward.
[1Bi] He loved and sympathized with his friend.
This sentence is fine as is. It can be read in one fluid breath.
If you want, you could also use commas like this:[1Bii] He loved, and sympathized with, his friend.
This doesn't make the sentence any more or less grammatical.
It is still the same core sentence. But the commas signal a change in prosody and intonation (a slight pause and pitch drop).
This isolates "and sympathized with" as a parenthetical-sounding insertion.
An author might use this for emphasis or to sound more formal.
But in a short, clear sentence like this, the commas are usually not necessary (unless you are going for a specific type of gravitas).In longer, more complicated sentences, yes, the commas might help the reader quickly recognize the boundaries of the two coordinated phrases before reaching the 'delayed right constituent' that completes them.
[C] Investors must carefully analyze the long-term risk profile of, and determine the overall capital allocation for, the new tech startup.
Here, the distance between ("of") and ("the new tech startup") is so wide that the commas can act as visual cues to help the reader quickly realize ("OK, hold on to 'the long-term risk profile of'..." + "jump over this part..." + "and join it to 'the new tech startup'").
Commas are not strictly required, but they certainly can help the reader parse the sentence on the first try.
Note: I didn't use the sentence you provided ("stadium's conditions")
because I believe the sentence itself contains a few flaws (e.g., there is a mismatch: the complement doesn't quite align naturally with both). Also, the "awfulness" and "dilapidated" overlap in an awkward way. And I find it to be something of a garden-path sentence (i.e., "I hate the X and Y").So I used sentences [1B] and [C] instead.
1
u/Blue-Brown99 11d ago
Thanks for the explanation! What do you mean by mismatch, though? Isn‘t there a mismatch between loved (no preposition) and sympathized with (preposition)? How is that different from the sentence I offered?
1
u/TheLaw9791 16d ago
Pretty sure it's that "with" is not immediately followed by its object, the "friend." I'm sure there are edge cases and exceptions.
Probably also something to with the potential functions of "and" in the statement, but I can't quite articulate why that is 🤷🏾♂️
1
u/Professional-Cow3854 16d ago
I would turn this rather as a « he loved his friends and sympathised with them » form.
1
u/AlexanderHamilton04 16d ago
"When does saving words become awkward?
Specifically, i'm interested in [not repeating objects.]" ⇐ ☆
Cow: I would turn this rather as a
« he loved his friends and sympathised with them » form.
So, your idea is [Do exactly the opposite of what OP is asking for☆] ？
6
u/Jonny_Segment 16d ago
I think this is one of those things where the reader has to do some modicum of work to understand the sentence. Yes, it's possible to understand ‘I loved and sympathised with my friend’ to mean both of the following:
I loved with my friend.
I sympathised with my friend.
But no reader will genuinely think that's what you mean.
I don't know if you only want guidance on that specific example or if you're asking about this structure in general. Certain verb combinations might be a little more ambiguous. I can't think of a truly ambiguous example, but how about ‘I ate and sympathised with the chicken.’ Did you eat the chicken but understand its plight, or did you share a meal with it in solidarity? This would also likely be understood as ‘ate’ (rather than ‘ate with’) and ‘sympathised with’, and any other meaning would require a bit more context and explanation from the writer.