[Grammar] Is it ok when I omit a noun in between...and

[ZaraCastle]

Hi everybody,

Please help me check a sentence below:

There is a gradual rise in numbers between 40-49 age-group and 50-59 age-group.

My question is whether the sentence above is correct when I omit "age-group" right after 40-49 instead of leaving it as the original sentence?

Thanks very much for your answers.

 

[5jj]

There is a gradual rise in numbers between the 40-49 age-group and the 50-59 age-group.

My question is whether the sentence above is correct when I omit "age-group" right after 40-49 instead of leaving it as the original sentence

I think your original sentence need 'the' where I have put it.
If you omit the first 'age-group', it would be better to make the second plural:

There is a gradual rise in numbers between the 40-49 and the 50-59 age-groups.

 

[Richard1]

Hi,

Either way is correct. All that matters is that the reader interprets the same thing. If you leave out the first 'age-group' then you rely on the reader inferring that it's missing. (This happens a lot in English, and presumably other languages). In most cases that will be the case and there's no problem. Leaving it in avoids any doubt but has the slight disadvantage of repetition.

You could of course say instead, "There is a gradual rise in numbers between the 40-49 and 50-59 age-groups.

Regards

 

[Raymott]

Hi everybody,

Please help me check a sentence below:

There is a gradual rise in numbers between 40-49 age-group and 50-59 age-group.

My question is whether the sentence above is correct when I omit "age-group" right after 40-49 instead of leaving it as the original sentence?

Thanks very much for your answers.

Also, I'd check whether "gradual rise" is really what you want to say. If your graph shows levels for something in various age-groups, there will be one value for the 40-49 group and one value for the 50-59 group. They will generally be joined by a straight line - which gives no indication of whether the trend is gradual (perhaps it rises a little each year) or sudden (the numbers rise significantly only in one year, and the rest of the years remain the same - you won't see this on the graph). You cannot tell the difference if you only have values for the two groups - say 1000 and 1050 respectively, and they are connected by a purely arbitrary straight line.
Maybe you mean there is a small increase from the 40-49 group level to the 50-59 group level?

 

[Richard1]

Also, I'd check whether "gradual rise" is really what you want to say. If your graph shows levels for something in various age-groups, there will be one value for the 40-49 group and one value for the 50-59 group. They will generally be joined by a straight line - which gives no indication of whether the trend is gradual (perhaps it rises a little each year) or sudden (the numbers rise significantly only in one year, and the rest of the years remain the same - you won't see this on the graph). You cannot tell the difference if you only have values for the two groups - say 1000 and 1050 respectively, and they are connected by a purely arbitrary straight line.
Maybe you mean there is a small increase from the 40-49 group level to the 50-59 group level?

Hi,

I suppose it would be valid if the data being charted is across several years, (i.e. several years were being averaged out). Then it would be reasonable to talk about a gradual rise (if indeed that was the case) when individual years were being looked at. But I take your general point.

Rgds