Back
to top
English linguistic help
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
n4dz
Badges:
8
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Is there syntactical parallelism in "I looked around. They were standing. All around us." & what other language terminology can be applied to this sentence?
0
reply
etakate
Badges:
9
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
I wouldn't call it syntactic parallelism; more like a triad or at a stretch the first two are parallel structures, but that doesn't make much sense in that you have (Pronoun in subject position) (Verb in preterite) (Preposition) in sentence one, and sentence two is (Pronoun in subject position) (Continuous form of English copula "to be" in past imperfect tense) So I suppose you could argue that they're similar syntax initially, but after this there is very little similarity.
You could comment on the double "Around" as "epiphora" (Kinda? It's not exactly syntax finally for both but you could comment on this if you were really lacking.)
The third sentence is a minor sentence because it lacks a verb.
First person singular subject "I", Third person plural subject "they" creates ambiguous feeling; limitation in lack of context, but sure makes for a spooky sentence. First person plural object "Us" (Pronouns). You have the preterite "Looked", imperfect "Were standing" (Tenses). Standard English use and standard typographical manipulation. I suppose orthographically it's likely to be similar as well?
Hope this was useful.
You could comment on the double "Around" as "epiphora" (Kinda? It's not exactly syntax finally for both but you could comment on this if you were really lacking.)
The third sentence is a minor sentence because it lacks a verb.
First person singular subject "I", Third person plural subject "they" creates ambiguous feeling; limitation in lack of context, but sure makes for a spooky sentence. First person plural object "Us" (Pronouns). You have the preterite "Looked", imperfect "Were standing" (Tenses). Standard English use and standard typographical manipulation. I suppose orthographically it's likely to be similar as well?
Hope this was useful.
Last edited by etakate; 1 year ago
2
reply
n4dz
Badges:
8
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
(Original post by etakate)
I wouldn't call it syntactic parallelism; more like a triad or at a stretch the first two are parallel structures, but that doesn't make much sense in that you have (Pronoun in subject position) (Verb in preterite) (Preposition) in sentence one, and sentence two is (Pronoun in subject position) (Continuous form of English copula "to be" in past imperfect tense) So I suppose you could argue that they're similar syntax initially, but after this there is very little similarity.
You could comment on the double "Around" as "epiphora" (Kinda? It's not exactly syntax finally for both but you could comment on this if you were really lacking.)
The third sentence is a minor sentence because it lacks a verb.
First person singular subject "I", Third person plural subject "they" creates ambiguous feeling; limitation in lack of context, but sure makes for a spooky sentence. First person plural object "Us" (Pronouns). You have the preterite "Looked", imperfect "Were standing" (Tenses). Standard English use and standard typographical manipulation. I suppose orthographically it's likely to be similar as well?
Hope this was useful.
I wouldn't call it syntactic parallelism; more like a triad or at a stretch the first two are parallel structures, but that doesn't make much sense in that you have (Pronoun in subject position) (Verb in preterite) (Preposition) in sentence one, and sentence two is (Pronoun in subject position) (Continuous form of English copula "to be" in past imperfect tense) So I suppose you could argue that they're similar syntax initially, but after this there is very little similarity.
You could comment on the double "Around" as "epiphora" (Kinda? It's not exactly syntax finally for both but you could comment on this if you were really lacking.)
The third sentence is a minor sentence because it lacks a verb.
First person singular subject "I", Third person plural subject "they" creates ambiguous feeling; limitation in lack of context, but sure makes for a spooky sentence. First person plural object "Us" (Pronouns). You have the preterite "Looked", imperfect "Were standing" (Tenses). Standard English use and standard typographical manipulation. I suppose orthographically it's likely to be similar as well?
Hope this was useful.
0
reply
n4dz
Badges:
8
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
(Original post by n4dz)
Thank you so much this is really useful.
Thank you so much this is really useful.
(Original post by etakate)
I wouldn't call it syntactic parallelism; more like a triad or at a stretch the first two are parallel structures, but that doesn't make much sense in that you have (Pronoun in subject position) (Verb in preterite) (Preposition) in sentence one, and sentence two is (Pronoun in subject position) (Continuous form of English copula "to be" in past imperfect tense) So I suppose you could argue that they're similar syntax initially, but after this there is very little similarity.
You could comment on the double "Around" as "epiphora" (Kinda? It's not exactly syntax finally for both but you could comment on this if you were really lacking.)
The third sentence is a minor sentence because it lacks a verb.
First person singular subject "I", Third person plural subject "they" creates ambiguous feeling; limitation in lack of context, but sure makes for a spooky sentence. First person plural object "Us" (Pronouns). You have the preterite "Looked", imperfect "Were standing" (Tenses). Standard English use and standard typographical manipulation. I suppose orthographically it's likely to be similar as well?
Hope this was useful.
I wouldn't call it syntactic parallelism; more like a triad or at a stretch the first two are parallel structures, but that doesn't make much sense in that you have (Pronoun in subject position) (Verb in preterite) (Preposition) in sentence one, and sentence two is (Pronoun in subject position) (Continuous form of English copula "to be" in past imperfect tense) So I suppose you could argue that they're similar syntax initially, but after this there is very little similarity.
You could comment on the double "Around" as "epiphora" (Kinda? It's not exactly syntax finally for both but you could comment on this if you were really lacking.)
The third sentence is a minor sentence because it lacks a verb.
First person singular subject "I", Third person plural subject "they" creates ambiguous feeling; limitation in lack of context, but sure makes for a spooky sentence. First person plural object "Us" (Pronouns). You have the preterite "Looked", imperfect "Were standing" (Tenses). Standard English use and standard typographical manipulation. I suppose orthographically it's likely to be similar as well?
Hope this was useful.
1
reply
etakate
Badges:
9
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report
#5
(Original post by n4dz)
I was wondering if it would be considered a triplet of minor sentences
I was wondering if it would be considered a triplet of minor sentences
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
