Are the following two sentences punctuated and written correctly? "In his classical period Goethe was so taken with the concept of a single ideal of beauty that..." "The boy that had chased the big dog before attacked him with the stick." I'm asking because they are both used to explain points in a new book I just received about self-editing. They are both supposed to be the fixed versions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but are not both of those sentences missing commas and should it not be "The boy who"? I'm no grammarian but the author of this book claims to "style manuscripts for the Modern Language Association." This isn't yet another e-book, the book was written in 1985 and is still being sold on Amazon. And, maybe it's just me, but back in '85 wasn't it still a no-no to start sentences with "and" and "but"? Isn't breaking that rule a more modern/Internet sort of thing? With professional books like this, it's no wonder no one has had much to offer in the other thread asking about books we rely upon.
commas after 'period' and 'before', that and who are synonymous in this context. The commas go where you'd 'pause' if you were reading it out loud. A better way to phrase it of course would be 'The boy who had previously chased the big dog attacked him with the stick' - it's feasible to get away without a comma. Or more eloquently begin a la, 'The big dog was attacked with a stick by the boy ...' you get the idea.
The boy and stick example had several variations to make the point. I thought "proper" grammar used that for things and who for people. I think using that with people is one of those things people have done wrong for so long that it's become acceptable. I started this book late last night and the intro section on grammar left me scratching my head - too much too fast. It had only one negative review on Amazon, the rest were raves. While the author's ideas on editing might be good, I'm having trouble getting past examples that are not written properly.
I find that the first sentence reads well without any comma ( as it is originally). The second sentence does need a comma, for me at least. Otherwise it is too complicated, and almost an example of a garden path sentence.
This is exactly why I haven't invested in many writing books. I'm so disappointed. The author goes into this big explanation that the examples are mostly taken from pieces she's edited. She further lamented that taking sentences out of context would run the risk of making them confusing as to meaning. She's supposed to be a professional editor, seems like a no-brainer to come up with examples that would make sense as well as correctly punctuated fixes. The boy and stick example is so ridiculous and she actually provides 5 different, and equally horrid, "fixes."
Whatever way you rephrase the boy/dog sentence it will be awkward, personally i would write, the boy who hit the dog with a big stick, chased it first. The use of had is what really skews this sentence
Ugh. Both of those are awful. "In his classical period Goethe was so taken with the concept of a single ideal of beauty that..." During his classical period, Goethe was so taken with the concept of a single ideal of beauty that he blah. "The boy that had chased the big dog before attacked him with the stick." This sentence shows a very common problem with many writers. It's a pronoun/antecedent problem. There's not a clear connection. The boy chased a big dog and then attacked him with the damn stick. Why is that so hard to understand? Maybe that editor charged by the word...
It's no wonder so many people don't write properly when an "expert" uses sentences like these two as examples of "corrected" writing. Of the five corrected versions, the writer never offered a solution as clean as Rebecca's. Out of 21 reviews on Amazon, only one was bad. I'm only on page 18. Hopefully, the examples get better as it goes along. Anyone know of a decent book on self-editing?