• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Grammatically correct?

C

chambersc

Diamond Member
"Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I find it puzzling that he would refrain from filing charges now but would do so in the future posthaste."

Am I correct in assuming that this sentence is correct?
 
Lose 'posthaste'. If he's doing 'it' in the future, he's not doing 'it' posthaste. This being OT, you will hear from peeps who will argue that he could be doing 'it' posthaste in the future. Please, please don't listen to them, they are English usage idiots.

Also, the verb 'qualifying' makes no sense here. Change it to whatever you meant to say, i.e., divining, parsing, deducing, fully understanding . . . whatever.

But truly, these changes do little to rescue this sentence. It is clunky and inelegant and should be re-written entirely . . . if you really care about such things.

I'm only going into such detail because you asked. Feel free not to care.
 
Thank you Perknose.

How does qualifying not fit?

"5. to attribute some quality or qualities to; characterize, call, or name: She cannot qualify his attitude as either rational or irrational."

Seems apt to me.
 
im gunna try and figure out what the sentence means.

without understanding XXX's actions.
i find it confusing that he would not file charges now, but would file them in the future?
 
Originally posted by: chambersc
Thank you Perknose.

How does qualifying not fit?

"5. to attribute some quality or qualities to; characterize, call, or name: She cannot qualify his attitude as either rational or irrational."

Seems apt to me.
Click to expand...
Note that that is the FIFTH listed meaning on dictionary.com, the least discriminate dictionary I have ever seen.

You can get away with using it and most people will know what you meant to say, just as I know what you meant by "in the future posthaste"; but, since you were asking, I assume you want this sentence to past the muster of a higher, stricter standard.

If that is so, then my advice pertains.

 
You've got a clause issue.

"Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I find it puzzling that he would refrain from filing charges now but would do so in the future posthaste."

Remove this "would refrain from filing charges now but" and it becomes:

"Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I find it puzzling that he would do so in the future posthaste."

[edit] To clarify, the second sentence makes no sense at all, which points out that the original sentence has some serious issues.
 
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: chambersc
Thank you Perknose.

How does qualifying not fit?

"5. to attribute some quality or qualities to; characterize, call, or name: She cannot qualify his attitude as either rational or irrational."

Seems apt to me.
Click to expand...
Note that that is the FIFTH listed meaning on dictionary.com, the least discriminate dictionary I have ever seen.

You can get away with using it and most people will know what you meant to say, just as I know what you meant by "in the future posthaste"; but, since you were asking, I assume you want this sentence to past the muster of a higher, stricter standard.

If that is so, then my advice pertains.
Click to expand...

So, then you assume that the "muster of a higher, stricter standard" wouldn't know that, going by the context clues, qualify means what it does in this sentence?

Please don't misinterpret my questioning of your meaning with some sort of indignation.
 
Originally posted by: chambersc
So, then you assume that the "muster of a higher, stricter standard" wouldn't know that, going by the context clues, qualify means what it does in this sentence?
Please don't misinterpret my questioning of your meaning with some sort of indignation.
Click to expand...
No, everyone can pretty much figure out what you meant to say. It's just that your sentence is poorly constructed, and I assume you asked because you cared about that. Like I said, feel free to ignore me.

 
If it's referring to two seperate incidents, then I believe the sentence is correct. Can you clarify the context of the sentence?

What I'm thinking is that it is basically saying: Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I don't understand why he would not file charges this time, and yet not hesitate to file charges in this other instance of a similar situation.

Is that right?
 
Originally posted by: everman
If it's referring to two seperate incidents, then I believe the sentence is correct. Can you clarify the context of the sentence?

What I'm thinking is that it is basically saying: Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I don't understand why he would not file charges this time, and yet not hesitate to file charges in this other instance of a similar situation.

Is that right?
Click to expand...
According to the sentence, it's ONE incident, not two seperate incidents. However, that is entirely beside the point grammatically.

Wow, what a morass of non-comprehension this has engendered. In that case, OP, it truly won't matter WHAT you write.

 
Originally posted by: chambersc
"Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I find it puzzling that he would refrain from filing charges now but would do so in the future posthaste."

Am I correct in assuming that this sentence is correct?
Click to expand...

I'll take a stab. But a true grammar nazi would diagram it.

I mentally cannot link "without qualifying Mr. actions" and the clause.

In other words, that sentence doesn't make sense to me even if it is grammatically correct. It seems best served by three seperate clauses - open then two dependant ones. I don't proclaim to be a literist and wouldn't mind input on my suggestions.

"Mr. XXX actions cannot be qualified without questioning the following; why did he refrain from filing, and why would he not do so in the future."

I'm really having trouble reading your sentence, but then again legalese is like taking a big crap and tossing a few unlinked clauses to confuse the reader.
 
Without qualifying his actions, I find it puzzling Mr. XXX is refraining from filing charges but may do so in the near future.
 
Gramatically, the sentence is quite correct. I fully agree it does not seem to make sense from the perspective of straight logic, but I think that's the whole point! The irony of what is said almost demands that the reader (hearer?) ask for clarification: "Say. What???" And in that spirit, the use of the somewhat arcane word "qualifying" enhances the off-the-wall tone of the whole thing. If the intention was to convey the idea that this situation is pretty strange, then I think the writing actually is rather good!
 
My suggestion is:

"I find it puzzling that Mr. XX would refrain from filing charges immediately but would consider doing so in the future, yet am I hesitant to qualify his actions."
 
Originally posted by: chambersc
"Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I find it puzzling that he would refrain from filing charges now but would do so in the future posthaste."

Am I correct in assuming that this sentence is correct?
Click to expand...

"Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I find it puzzling that he would refrain from filing charges now, but would do so in the future."

(note the bold comma)

edit: actually... this entire sentence is jacked up. it doesn't really make sense.


"Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I find it puzzling why he waited so long to file charges."

that makes a little more sense....
 
Originally posted by: HotChic
My suggestion is:

"I find it puzzling that Mr. XX would refrain from filing charges immediately but would consider doing so in the future, yet I am hesitant to qualify his actions."
Click to expand...

Naw, that's not really much better. It seems to me as if it doesn't flow very well. Really, the whole thing needs to be reworked.

"Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I find it puzzling that he would refrain from filing charges at this time, but would do so eagerly at a later date."
Click to expand...

That's not too much better either, though.
 
Originally posted by: jagec
Originally posted by: HotChic
My suggestion is:

"I find it puzzling that Mr. XX would refrain from filing charges immediately but would consider doing so in the future, yet I am hesitant to qualify his actions."
Click to expand...

Naw, that's not really much better. It seems to me as if it doesn't flow very well. Really, the whole thing needs to be reworked.

"Without qualifying Mr. XX's actions, I find it puzzling that he would refrain from filing charges at this time, but would do so eagerly at a later date."
Click to expand...

That's not too much better either, though.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. I was trying to find a way to keep this in a single sentence, but really it ought to be broken up into two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top