Verb repetition

[Allen165]

"These predictions will be purely informal, will have no binding character, and will not oblige X to place orders."

Is it necessary to repeat "will"?

Thanks!

 

[5jj]

"These predictions will be purely informal, will have no binding character, and will not oblige X to place orders."

Is it necessary to repeat "will"?

No. It's a matter of personal preference.

 

[corum]

These predictions [will be purely informal] and [will have no binding character]. - conjoined predicates

≠

These predictions will be purely informal and [STRIKE]will[/STRIKE] have no binding character. -- Is it an instance of conjoined predicates where the second operator is ellipted? or conjoined predications? The two cases give different meanings to the sentence.

------
-----

These predictions will be purely informal, will have no binding character, and will not oblige X to place orders. -- conjoined predicates

=

These predictions will [be purely informal], [have no binding character], and [not oblige X to place orders]. -- conjoined predications
Here, the last conjoin suggests we have three conjoined predications.

≠

These predictions [will be purely informal], [have no binding character], and [does not oblige X to place orders]. -- conjoined predicates (not predications)

No. It's a matter of personal preference.

Agreed. Matter of style.

 

[Allen165]

These predictions [will be purely informal] and [will have no binding character]. - conjoined predicates

≠

These predictions will be purely informal and [STRIKE]will[/STRIKE] have no binding character. -- Is it an instance of conjoined predicates where the second operator is ellipted? or conjoined predications? The two cases give different meanings to the sentence.

------
-----

These predictions will be purely informal, will have no binding character, and will not oblige X to place orders. -- conjoined predicates

=

These predictions will [be purely informal], [have no binding character], and [not oblige X to place orders]. -- conjoined predications
Here, the last conjoin suggests we have three conjoined predications.

≠

These predictions [will be purely informal], [have no binding character], and [does not oblige X to place orders]. -- conjoined predicates (not predications)



Agreed. Matter of style.

I appreciate your effort, but I didn't understand half the words you used. My guess is that most people don't have the slightest clue what "conjoined predications" are. Where do you get these terms?

 

[5jj]

My guess is that most people don't have the slightest clue of what "conjoined predications" are.

I am not sure whether what I write below is in line with Corum's views or not, as I don't spend a lot of time on conjoined predications. I am simply trying to explain why in answer to your original question, my answer was, 'It's a matter of personal preference". I should have added, "with this utterance".

If your original sentence had been

"These predictions will be purely informal, will have no binding character, and will leave X free to do as he pleases",

then will cannot be omitted. This is because 'have' and 'leave' could be interpreted as present simple forms in the version without will.

However, in your original:

"These predictions will be purely informal, will have no binding character, and will not oblige X to place orders",

omission of will leaves have and not oblige. Not oblige is not possible as a present simple form and is appropriate only if the omitted will is understood. It is therefore natural to assume that have is also dependent on an omitted will.

 

[Allen165]

I am not sure whether what I write below is in line with Corum's views or not, as I don't spend a lot of time on conjoined predications. I am simply trying to explain why in answer to your original question, my answer was, 'It's a matter of personal preference". I should have added, "with this utterance".

If your original sentence had been

"These predictions will be purely informal, will have no binding character, and will leave X free to do as he pleases",

then will cannot be omitted. This is because 'have' and 'leave' could be interpreted as present simple forms in the version without will.

However, in your original:

"These predictions will be purely informal, will have no binding character, and will not oblige X to place orders",

omission of will leaves have and not oblige. Not oblige is not possible as a present simple form and is appropriate only if the omitted will is understood. It is therefore natural to assume that have is also dependent on an omitted will.

I now get it. Great explanation!

Thank you.