Ask the LJ grammarfiends

[nminusone]

Is the sentence below grammatically correct? Incorrect? Technically correct but could be clearer? Some other option

Comments

[orlacarey]

at the very least it is missing an "is"

Professor [name] is an attorney who teaches entrepreneurship and is an expert in urban business startups.

Personally I would go with something like

Professor [name] is an attorney who specializes in urban business startups. He/she currently teaches entrepreneurship at [educational organization].

[nminusone]

So you are saying that the original is grammatically incorrect?

[orlacarey]

Hrmmm...okay, I'm saying that it looks incorrect to me. However I'm not comfortable saying it is incorrect, because I suck at diagraming sentances.

[nminusone]

LOL I'm in basically the same boat. It *looks* wrong, or at best technically correct, but I know my knowledge of grammar is too poor to be certain.

[gipsieee]

If it is correct, it shouldn't be.

But that's just me being ornery.

[nixieq]

i don't THINK it's correct without the extra "is" ("and IS an expert"), and it has something to do with what modifies what part of the sentence. that's as far out on the grammar limb as i'll go.

[motive_nuance]

It's infelicitous and poorly-written, but not grammatically incorrect. Structurally it's isomorphic to "He is an officer and a gentleman."

[tcepsa]

This!

Also, may I please copy your icon?

[nminusone]

That's what I suspected but I couldn't be sure.

[tcepsa]

I believe that it doesn't break any rules from a strictly grammatical perspective. Furthermore, while it is awkwardly worded there isn't really any potential for ambiguity that I can see. The only change I'd strongly recommend (if I were asked for such a recommendation) would be the addition of "is" in the middle of "and an" but even that, I think, is not strictly necessary.

Further proof that a sentence is not necessarily good communication just because it is grammatically correct ~wry grin~

[nminusone]

I believe that it doesn't break any rules from a strictly grammatical perspective. Furthermore, while it is awkwardly worded ...

Yes and oh God yes!

... there isn't really any potential for ambiguity that I can see.

Going out on a limb I think you could get ambiguity in this way:

"Professor [name] is an attorney who teaches [...] an expert in urban business startups."

Silly, yes, and pretty clearly *not* what was intended but that was how my brain originally tried to parse it.

[tcepsa]

Okay, I retract the statement about no ambiguity, and that also explains why I want the extra "is" in there ^_^ However, I do maintain that the odds of someone coming to the conclusion that you mention are very small, even in the original sentence.

[nminusone]

Oh I agree. I think the slight *possibility* is there, but I think almost all people will get the intended meaning.