1

Pro-Europeans, sensible pragmatists, people who had earned respect across parliament, abase themselves. 

(link:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/boris-johnson-tories-europeans-parliament)

I think "add" should be inserted between "pragmatists and people" as in "Pro-europeans, sensible pragmatists, and people who had..."

Is it okay not to add "and" ?

Or, perhaps,  "people" is referring to "sensible pragmatists" and "sensible pragmatists" is referring to "pro-europeans" appositively?

1

This is simply journalese, where omitting words when the meaning can still be grasped is common. In fact what the question quotes is a headline, where this tendency is even more marked. Much the same phrase appe3ars in the body of the article:

Remainers, passionate pro-Europeans, sensible pragmatists, people who over a lifetime have earned a measure of respect across parliament, tear off their clothes of respectability to abase themselves in pursuit of ... what? A job? Influence?

It is not absolutely clear if this is a list of four groups: remainers, pro-europeans, pragmatists, and "people who .. have earned ... " or if only the first three groups are intended, with the "people who" phrase a description of all three. The sense is not very different in either case. But that sows why using an 'and" here would indeed have been better writing -- it would have avoided the ambiguity re

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.