0

"Instead of Jack swimming the race, it was Jill swimming the race".

Is the "swimming the race" for Jill needed? What if I only put "swimming"? What if completely omit it?

migrated from english.stackexchange.com Apr 18 '18 at 21:59

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

2

It is not needed and is mostly a question of style. You could say

  1. Instead of Jack swimming the race, it was Jill swimming the race.
  2. Instead of Jack swimming the race, it was Jill.
  3. Instead of Jack swimming the race, it was Jill swimming.

The article "the" and noun "race" are not needed, nor is the second verb "swimming."

The implied meanings might be slightly different for each of them.

For example, 1 seems the most clear and neutral to me. Number 2 seems to me to emphasize the fact that is is Jill, as opposed to anyone else. It puts the focus more on Jill. Number 3 seems to me to slightly emphasize the fact that it's Jill SWIMMING, as opposed to doing something else. There is more emphasis on Jill swimming, than on Jill herself.

  • 1
    The syntactic rule involved is called "Conjunction Reduction" and it deletes repeated material in parallel (usually conjoined) phrases. – John Lawler Apr 15 '18 at 2:41

Your Answer

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