comparisons with no repetitions

[ripley]

Hi, I'd like to know if the following sentence is correct:

1) In Elizabethan theatres there weren't curtains or scenary , while in modern ones THERE ARE.

Can I say THERE ARE at the end without repeating curtains or scenery?
Are there any other mistakes?

I have quite the same problem with this sentence:

2) Modern theatres are covered, instead Elizabethan ones were not.

Can I just say were not withouth repeating covered? Is the use of the comma before instead correct?

Can I say :

3) Elizabethan theatres were small, circular or octagonal, while nowadays they are of different size and form.

Can I use the pronoun or should I say theatres?
Is it correct to say "nowadays theatres are of different size and form"? Could I say

4) Nowadays there are theatres of different size and form?

Should I put size and form in the plural forms?

Thank you.
Rip.

[Mister Micawber]

#1 is fine, Rip. You needn't repeat.

#2 is fine re repetition, but the comma produces a comma-splice sentence. Insert a conjunction, or change the comma to a semicolon (and add a comma after 'instead').

#3 & 4 -- You needn't repeat 'theatres'. Both the singulars and plurals of 'size' and 'form' work, as they can be considered either countables or concepts. In #3, you need to repunctuate 'small, circular or octagonal' to avoid its reading as three different choices: 'small, and circular or octagonal'.

[ripley]

Hi, I'm not sure I understand what you mean, when you say

2 is fine re repetition,


Do you mean it is to repeat the word cover, or you mean it is fine without repetition? Thanks Rip.

[Mister Micawber]

It is fine without repeating 'theatre' or 'covered'.