1

I am writing a sentence:

A week passed without hearing back from her, Michael started calling her friends.

This, of course, is a run-on sentence. To fix it, I tried this:

A week on (later) without hearing back from her, Michael started calling her friends.

This sounds better. But I wonder how I can make the sentence work while retaining the verb "pass". To make it a non-finite verb, I tried:

A week having passed without hearing back from her, Michael started calling her friends.

This sounds really stilted to me, but I guess it is grammatical. Are there better ways to make it work without having to add a conjunction?

  • Your question isn't clear. Are you saying that you want to use the verb "pass" and also keep it as a non-finite (like a gerund or a participle), i.e. "having passed" or "passing" or "to pass" or something like that? Otherwise there are a number of ways to structure this sentence, for example just start with "After ...". – Andrew Apr 27 '19 at 1:34
  • @Andrew Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. – Eddie Kal Apr 27 '19 at 1:35
  • Okie dokie. Then I think HiddenBabel's edited answer is pretty much the limit of the available options. – Andrew Apr 27 '19 at 1:37
2

Insert the word so:

A week passed without hearing back from her, so Michael started calling her friends.

Edit: I don't think you can keep it a dependent clause as you wanted. However, I think if you switched the order of your last sentence,

Having passed a week without hearing from her, ...

that doesn't sound too bad.

  • Thanks, but that's not what I am looking for... – Eddie Kal Apr 27 '19 at 1:18
  • @EddieKal Perhaps we don't quite understand what you want to say then, since "so" seems perfectly correct to me. In this context it means something like "therefore", without being as stilted. – Andrew Apr 27 '19 at 1:21
  • What are you going for, more specifically? – HiddenBabel Apr 27 '19 at 1:21
  • @Andrew I understand it appears a simple conjunction works wonders here. It does. But I am trying to make the first clause a non-finite dependent clause, for stylistic reasons. – Eddie Kal Apr 27 '19 at 1:26
  • @EddieKal I see. That makes sense. However if you want to keep the first clause independent, it rules out many more options than just the conjunction, I think. – Andrew Apr 27 '19 at 1:28

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.