1

please consider that English is not my first language :D thanks

the sentence:

[...], however, as he is not only holding onto the rope but is tied to it just like his counterpart, the native, [...]

my problem:

can I just remove the second "is"? -> he is not only holding onto the rope but tied to it? both versions sound really awkward to me but I can`t think of any other way to express it right now

bumped to the homepage by Community 2 days ago

This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.

migrated from english.stackexchange.com Aug 14 '17 at 14:27

This question came from our site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts.

  • 2
    I prefer the cadence of the version with the second is. – Lawrence Aug 10 '17 at 12:42
  • Perhaps you can try rewriting in the following form: ;however, not only is he holding onto to the rope, but like his counterpart, is also tied to it. – Stick figure Aug 10 '17 at 12:46
  • 2
    Now that's remarkable, as for me, removing the second is creates a syllepsis and a garden-path sentence. It's horrible at best. – ЯegDwight Aug 10 '17 at 12:58
  • 1
    I dislike dropping the second is because the two have different syntactic functions: the first is a progressive auxiliary and the second is a passive auxiliary. It's a "She left in a huff and a sedan chair" sort of thing. – StoneyB Aug 10 '17 at 12:59
  • 2
    For parallelism, you would have either "not only is ... but is...." or else "is not only ... but ..." Yours is a mixture of these two, so not precisely parallel. – GEdgar Aug 10 '17 at 13:51
0

You can't remove the second "is" because "is holding" and "is tied" are two different types of verbs. A compound verb can share an "is," but a compound verb must be made up of the same kind.

"Is holding" is a present progressive form, whereas "is tied" is [copula + participle]. The first verb is an active action verb and the second is a passive status.

  • I think saying "can't" here is too strong. I agree that it is better to retain the second is, both for this reason and for parallelism as indicated by @GEdgar ina comment to teh question. But this sort of construction is used often enough, including by fluent speakers, that it cannot be labeled 'wrong. Moreover, if the second if is removed it does not seriously lead to any ambiguity, nor even to the kind of surprise that syllepsis often generates, as in "The cook was a good cook as cooks go, and as cooks go she went" ("Reginald on Besetting Sins" Saki) – David Siegel 2 days ago

Your Answer

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