[Grammar] Repetition of auxiliary verbs:...is an ethical question and is beyond the scope of...

[LaMelange]

Hello teachers,

I have a question on repetition of auxiliary verbs in sentences with multiple predicates.

Here is a sentence for example:

Whether it is right or wrong to categorize dogs as food, and to be able to eat them, is an ethical question and is beyond the scope of this chapter.

If the author is consistently using such a style (repeating the auxiliary verbs), should we go and religiously delete them, except in the first predicate?

I think not, but I would appreciate your thoughts on this.

Thank you very much!

 

[jutfrank]

The post is not clear. What repetition of auxiliary verbs?

If you want to know whether to omit the highlighted is, then no, I think the sentence is clearer with it there.

 

[GoesStation]

I think the sentence would be improved by removing and is.

 

[LaMelange]

Mr. Goes Station, I got your point in this particular sentence. But I have my doubts regarding other sentences. I shall come up with better examples tomorrow.
Thank you!

 

[emsr2d2]

Mr. Goes Station, I got your point in this particular sentence. But I have my doubts regarding other sentences. I shall come up with better examples tomorrow.
Thank you!

LaMelange, it is not appropriate to prefix usernames with "Mr". That suggests you assume the user is male. There is no reason for such an assumption. If you must quote a username, just type the username!

 

[LaMelange]

Hello teachers,

Greetings!

Here are a couple more examples:

1. In Sweden, for example, with a population of 9 million people, 85% of the country’s 1 million dogs are purebred, are kept primarily for companionship or recreational hunting, and are registered with the Swedish Kennel Club.

(a) This sentence has 3 predicates. The first one is a linking verb and a subject complement. The verbs in the second and third are in passive voice and are both followed by a prepositional phrase. Am I right so far?
(b) Is the original sentence correct the way it is? if yes, would the above sentence be still correct if the auxiliary verbs (are) are removed (as below)?

In Sweden, for example, with a population of 9 million people, 85% of the country’s 1 million dogs are purebred, kept primarily for companionship or recreational hunting, and registered with the Swedish Kennel Club.

2. As of 1995, dogs were banned in cities and suburbs, but were allowed in rural areas.

In such sentences (with 2 or more predicates), if the author has a tendency to repeat the auxiliary verbs, should we always remove the second (and third, if present) auxiliary verb because it is understood?


Here is another sentence:

Generally speaking, people who were younger, were single, had higher levels of income, had higher levels of education, had grown up in urban areas, had household dogs as a child or had childhood family dogs that were allowed to move about freely inside of the house reported themselves to be more fond of dogs.

Would this sentence be correct if the bolded verbs were removed?

Thanks a ton for your patience!

 

[GoesStation]

I would remove more than just the verbs. For example, ...had higher levels of income and education.... Wherever you see a string of repeated words, try replacing the second instance with and.

 

[Barb_D]

Here is a sentence for example:

Whether it is right or wrong to categorize dogs as food, and to be able to eat them, is an ethical question and is beyond the scope of this chapter.

This makes it into TWO questions, not one.
Whether it is right or wrong to categorize dogs as food and thus eat them is an ethical question beyond the scope of this chapter.
Whether it is right or wrong to categorize dogs as food and to eat them are ethical questions beyond the scope of this chapter.

With your other examples, I find the repetition of "are" appropriate, especially because (as you point out) it serves multiple functions in the sentence.

The one with the list of factors that made people more likely to own dogs is already a bit of a mess. As Goes said, a complete re-write on that would be best.

 

[Raymott]

The sane solution to 1 and 3 is to break them into several sentences.
1. In Sweden, for example, with a population of 9 million people, 85% of the country’s 1 million dogs are purebred. They are kept primarily for companionship or recreational hunting, and are registered with the Swedish Kennel Club.