This was the question:
What's wrong with this? "With enough money, we could buy a new van, instead of repairing the one that was seven years old with spit and glue."
Punctuation 36 (46%)
Grammar 31 (39%)
Spelling 0 (0%)
Wordiness 11 (14%)
Congratulations, 39% of you. The phrase "with spit and glue" doesn't belong next with "that was seven years old." In this case, you can't just move the phrase; you have to change the wording slightly:
"With enough money, we could buy a new van, instead of using spit and glue to repair the one that was seven years old."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Is the comma after van really necessary? :)
Some commas are absolutely necessary but not this one.
Was it possible to correct the phrase with a pair of commas ?
"With enough money, we could buy a new van, instead of repairing the one, that was seven years old, with spit and glue."
Less fluent that your version but correct ?
Hey, Willie. Not possible. sorry. You can't put commas around a "that" clause in that manner. You can put commas around a "which" clause, as in "The dog, which I saw lying in the street, broke a leg." You can also put commas around a "who" clause, as in "The woman, who sat in the sun, looked around the piazza."
Could it be fixed with a semi-colon?
"With enough money, we could buy a new van; instead of repairing the one that was seven years old with spit and glue."
Or does it have something to do with with modifying the wrong clause?
You could use a semicolon, but the two sentences you join with one must be able to stand on their own. Your example would not work, however.
Yes, the problem here is that "with spit and glue" isn't next to "repair."
Post a Comment