Ask Me a Question

If you have a writing, grammar, style or punctuation question, send an e-mail message to curiouscase at sign hotmail dot com.

Add Your Own Criminal Sentence!

If you find a particularly terrible sentence somewhere, post it for all to see (go here and put it in the Comments section).

Monday, June 21, 2010

Poll Results 92

I don't have results this week because the poll wasn't working, but I do want to explain the sentence in question, which was this:

Do you find this sentence confusing at first? "There seemed to be no danger for he had ordered the gate thrown open."

I read this sentence in a book and got hung up on the word "for," thinking it went with "There seemed to be no danger for..." as if a person would be named next. However, "for" in this sentence is synonymous with "because."
Posted by at
Labels:

1 comment:

David said...

"There seemed to be no danger for he had ordered the gate thrown open."

There should be a comma after danger and a "that" following "ordered," and since it is subjunctive, a "be" following "gate."

The sentence should read, ""There seemed to be no danger, for he had ordered that the gate be thrown open."

August 17, 2010 at 2:48 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)