APG-L Archives

Archiver > APG > 2007-11 > 1195127804


From: John <>
Subject: Re: [APG] APG Digest, Vol 2, Issue 557
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 05:56:44 -0600
References: <mailman.141.1195113640.25589.apg@rootsweb.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.141.1195113640.25589.apg@rootsweb.com>


> > The children were
> > 1. Tom, who stole a pig and ran away;
> > 2. Dick, who--with his wife Jane--became a
> > famous storybook character; and
> > 3. Harry, whom all the girls were wild about.

I agree that in this construction, 1, 2 and 3 complete the thought in
the opening three words. However, how about this construction?

The children are/were:

1) Tom was born Nov 1, 1923 in Hudspeth, Texas. He....
2) Mary was born Feb 1, 1926 in San Marcos, Texas. She...

In this case, the information in the numbered list does indeed follow
logically from the complete sentence introducing it. It is the life,
and the existence of the children that we are recording, is it not? I
realize completely that this is not how it is usually interpreted.
99% of those who use the construction would be thinking of it in the
grammatically incorrect fashion. However, this doesn't mean the
grammatically correct interpretation is illogical. It is logical, at
least to my mind. (Note that I am not suggesting that I have used
it.)

The English language is quite flexible, and what may be seen as
improper, when viewed from another perspective, can often be proper.

John Newmark
St. Louis, MO


This thread: