1

I wrote:

“R” denotes “Repeat” and to be distinguished from a letter, is in uppercase.

Should it be

“R” denotes “Repeat” and to be distinguished from a letter, it is in uppercase.

Are they grammatical?

  • R, which denotes "Repeat", is in uppercase to distinguish it from .... – Tᴚoɯɐuo Aug 14 '16 at 14:34
  • @TRomano thank you, but is my first sentence or the second one ungrammatical? – Ahmad Aug 14 '16 at 14:35
  • You asked about distance, not grammar, and tagged with "sentence-structure". – Tᴚoɯɐuo Aug 14 '16 at 14:35
  • It is borderline ungrammatical. To be distinguishable...or, as Mark H. wrote, and as I wrote above, "to distinguish it..." – Tᴚoɯɐuo Aug 14 '16 at 14:37
  • @TRomano I refined the question, however I thought sentence-structure tag implies the grammatical structure of a sentence – Ahmad Aug 14 '16 at 14:37
4

The first is very nearly grammatical. A well-placed comma is all it is lacking and a minor rewording makes it much cleaner.

“R” denotes “Repeat” and, to distinguish it from a letter, is in uppercase.

You could also, as @TRomano suggested, rewrite it:

R, which denotes "Repeat", is in uppercase to distinguish it from a letter.

or

R denotes "Repeat" and is in uppercase to distinguish it from a letter.

0

It is ungrammatical.

Consider this ungrammatical sentence:

The text, to be discerned, is set in a larger font.

The grammatical versions would be:

The text, to be discernible, is set in a larger font.

So it can be discerned, the text is set in a larger font.

The text, for it to be discerned, is set in a larger font.

We take action to ensure that the text can be read.

The text, to be readable, is set in a larger font.

ungrammatical The text, to be read, is set in a larger font.

The text is set in a larger font to be readable.

*The text is set in a larger font to be read.

  • Explain the downvote. This is a fine point of grammar and the use of the passive and adjectives formed from it. Just marking this answer down does nothing to clarify anything. – Tᴚoɯɐuo Aug 14 '16 at 15:00
  • I've upvoted your answer. – Mark Hubbard Aug 14 '16 at 15:22
  • I think people are going to disagree or agree with this depending on how their ear accepts or rejects "to be read" and similar as the semantic equivalent of "capable of being {past-participled}". – Tᴚoɯɐuo Aug 14 '16 at 15:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.