[Grammar] The toll it has taken on our society

[rainous]

1. The toll divorces have taken on our society is too dire to simply gloss them over as mere personal problems.

2. The toll it has taken on our society is too dire to simply gloss over the issues of divorce as mere personal problems.

Could someone please elaborate on these two sentences I wrote? Which one sounds better? Maybe neither? Are they even grammatically correct or understandable even?

(I want to stick with the second one if it's grammatically correct. But I don't know...)

Much thanks

 

[TheParser]

1. The toll divorces have taken on our society is too dire to simply gloss them over as mere personal problems.

2. The toll it has taken on our society is too dire to simply gloss over the issues of divorce as mere personal problems.

Could someone please elaborate on these two sentences I wrote? Which one sounds better? Maybe neither? Are they even grammatically correct or understandable even?

(I want to stick with the second one if it's grammatically correct. But I don't know...)

Much thanks

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) I am certainly no writer, but I feel that most writing teachers would not

be too happy with your second sentence.

(2) I think that a writer has to always think about his/her reader.

(3) When someone reads "The toll it has taken ...," s/he will stop reading

and ask him-/herself: "What is it?" In other words, you have lost your

reader. And good writers don't want to do that!

(4) I think that your first sentence is excellent. I would also add the

relative pronoun "that" after toll -- to make it perfectly clear to the reader.

 

[rainous]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) I am certainly no writer, but I feel that most writing teachers would not

be too happy with your second sentence.

(2) I think that a writer has to always think about his/her reader.

(3) When someone reads "The toll it has taken ...," s/he will stop reading

and ask him-/herself: "What is it?" In other words, you have lost your

reader. And good writers don't want to do that!

(4) I think that your first sentence is excellent. I would also add the

relative pronoun "that" after toll -- to make it perfectly clear to the reader.

I very much appreciate your piercing insight.

About your last point;

You are not telling me it's grammatically wrong to omit "that", are you?

because that's how I learned; if "that" is in an object position, it can be left out.

 

[TheParser]

I very much appreciate your piercing insight.

Just hoping that you could clarify something regarding your last point;

You are not telling me it's grammatically wrong to omit "that", are you?

because that's how I learned; if "that" is in an object position, it can be left out.

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) You are 100% correct: usually "that" can be deleted if it's an object.

(a) There are occasionally times, however, when it's almost necessary to prevent

confusion. (Sorry that I can't think of an example right now. Maybe a teacher will give

us an example.)

(b) I think that learners would be well advised to always use it. And if

your readers are also learners, you would be doing them a tremendous favor in

helping them to better understand the text.

(i) For example, some readers might think that "toll divorces" refers to a type

of divorce. That is, some readers might think that you are using "toll" as an adjective

to modify the noun "divorces." If you put in the "that," such a problem will not

arise, and your reader will not be confused. Every time that a reader has to stop

and think about the grammar, the writer has "lost" him/her.

 

[rainous]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


(1) You are 100% correct: usually "that" can be deleted if it's an object.

(a) There are occasionally times, however, when it's almost necessary to prevent

confusion. (Sorry that I can't think of an example right now. Maybe a teacher will give

us an example.)

(b) I think that learners would be well advised to always use it. And if

your readers are also learners, you would be doing them a tremendous favor in

helping them to better understand the text.

(i) For example, some readers might think that "toll divorces" refers to a type

of divorce. That is, some readers might think that you are using "toll" as an adjective

to modify the noun "divorces." If you put in the "that," such a problem will not

arise, and your reader will not be confused. Every time that a reader has to stop

and think about the grammar, the writer has "lost" him/her.

Thank you for your thoughts, Parser.

If there were a land called Englishiva, you could be the minister of human welfare.