Is it OK to omit the following "grammatical rules" in fiction? [closed]
Closed by System on Apr 29, 2015 at 18:27
This question was closed; new answers can no longer be added. Users with the reopen privilege may vote to reopen this question if it has been improved or closed incorrectly.
Okay, I'm not sure if they are "rules" or "grammatical", but here they go:
After a while our necks began to ache, so we sat on the rest chairs behind (us). I liked it here. The air was fresh and there was a low hip roof to shelter us from the wind.
To give myself something to do, I searched for constellations. I wasn't an expert (on it); my knowledge was limited to horoscope columns and astronomy documentaries.
As an author, would you omit the bolded parts? Why or why not?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/17012. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
1 answer
These are both prepositional phrases. Number 1 should be included. Number 2 does not have to be. Below I explain why.
A prepositional phrase must consist of a preposition (behind, on, in, under, around, etc.) and an object (i.e. what the object of the sentence is behind, on, in, etc.)
Sentence number 1 omits the prepositional object 'us.' You need that object. If you read the sentence by itself, you'll see why. What are the chairs behind? Us? The house? The sunset? What?
Sentence number 2 omits the whole phrase, not just the object. "On it" certainly adds explanation, but you can get away without it.
Summary: You can omit an entire prepositional phrase. You cannot omit just the object of a prepositional phrase.
That being said, authors can and do take grammatical liberties sometimes. If you feel the sentence would sound better a different way, write it that way.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads