• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Help Read This Sentence...

Furcifer

Guest
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
13,797
Is the following sentence grammatically correct?

14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock and the alarmists, knowing they're the biggest contributors, continue to avoid and deny the significance.

I was always told the basic rule was, when you use commas the sentence should read the same if you remove what's between them. So the above becomes:

14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock and the alarmists continue to avoid and deny the significance.

A forum member insists "knowing they are the biggest contributors" applies to "livestock". Which doesn't make any sense to me, because in my mind it clearly applies to "alarmists".

Is this a run on sentence? Does it only make sense as two complete sentences:

14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock. Alarmists knowing they are the biggest contributors continue to avoid and deny the significance.

Does the "they" clearly refer to the "alarmists" or does it refer to the "livestock" in the preceding sentence? :boggled:
 
No. "continue" doesn't agree with any subject I can tease out of your first sentence.

As you noticed, the subject, "alarmists" was incongruent in the first sentence.
 
Last edited:
Try it this way:

14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock, and the alarmists, knowing they're the biggest contributors, continue to avoid and deny the significance.

Without the comma, emissions are from livestock and alarmists, even though with a little more common sense one can see that makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
Comma after livestock works, eve n though those pesky alarmists should be in the frame as well. I laughed when I read your OP...
 
It's more the fact that you're starting a sentence with a number that bothers me. Poor form.
 
How about:

GHG emission alarmists, aware that they're the biggest contributors, continue to avoid and deny the significance of the finding that 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions are from livestock.
 
Emissions. Plural.

14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions are from livestock; the alarmists know this, but continue to avoid and deny the significance.
 
It's more the fact that you're starting a sentence with a number that bothers me. Poor form.

Funny, when I copy pasted it the second time I was a little irked by it as well. I don't think there's anything wrong with it technically but the little grammar Nazi in my head had a conniption.
 
Funny, when I copy pasted it the second time I was a little irked by it as well. I don't think there's anything wrong with it technically but the little grammar Nazi in my head had a conniption.
Yes, I don't think that it's "wrong", but many style guides advise against it. Quite besides anything else, how does one differentiate a capital 1 from a lower case 1?
 
No. "continue" doesn't agree with any subject I can tease out of your first sentence.

As you noticed, the subject, "alarmists" was incongruent in the first sentence.

It is? See that's why I thought you were supposed to do the "Drop everything between the commas" test.

Cats will only eat meat but dogs, being omnivorous, will readily eat vegetables if given the chance.

Without the commas it reads more like "dogs being omnivorous", like they are just acting omnivorous and not being omnivorous.
 
Yes, I don't think that it's "wrong", but many style guides advise against it. Quite besides anything else, how does one differentiate a capital 1 from a lower case 1?

lol, I had hoped the capitalize the start of a sentence rule had died with texting. It's so tedious to do on a phone.

I fought tooth and nail with English teachers to start sentences with "But" through high school. I ran into a teacher when I was in University who was quick to tell me the MLA had reversed their stance and it was now acceptable. The change was not retroactive so my HS grade stayed the same. :p
 
I'm fine with the first sentence, including the commas, except for the ambiguous use of "they're". Change it to "livestock are" and it works.
 
Emissions. Plural.

14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions are from livestock; the alarmists know this, but continue to avoid and deny the significance.

Good eye. I was so caught up with the rest of the sentence I missed this several times. :blush:

Is there no way to include in the sentence the idea the alarmists are the biggest contributors to GHG emissions?

(see now that sentence also feels wrong for some reason)
 
I'm fine with the first sentence, including the commas, except for the ambiguous use of "they're". Change it to "livestock are" and it works.

Uh oh, the they is supposed to be "alarmists are" and not "livestock". So it would read:

14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions are from livestock and the alarmists, knowing alarmists are the biggest contributors, continue to avoid and deny the significance.

It seems more ambiguous.
 
Uh oh, the they is supposed to be "alarmists are" and not "livestock". So it would read:

14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions are from livestock and the alarmists, knowing alarmists are the biggest contributors, continue to avoid and deny the significance.

It seems more ambiguous.
Wait, the alarmists are the biggest contributors to the emissions? Is the sentence supposed to tongue-in-cheek, referring to alarmists as blowing hot air or something? Surely, the "they're" is supposed to refer to the livestock, even though the original sentence doesn't have it that way. A pronoun always refers to the immediately preceding noun.

Also, as to the commas, the original sentence has two independent phrases. "14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock" and "the alarmists, knowing they're the biggest contributors, continue to avoid and deny the significance." These must be separated by a comma. As another poster already pointed out, it otherwise says that "14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock and the alarmists . . ."

BTW, Livestock and the Alarmists are trending on Spotify.
 
Eats, Shoots, and Leaves (or Eats shoots and leaves)- very good book. Correct use of commas and placement of clauses are important.

In any case I have heard on the news a lot of concern from environmentalists about the contribution of domesticated ungulates to green house gases, Admittedly I have heard less about the contribution of male college students (who live on tacos and pepperoni pizza) to the same problem.
 
It is? See that's why I thought you were supposed to do the "Drop everything between the commas" test.

I think that the "drop everything between the commas" test only applies to the use of commas to indicate parenthetical* statements within the sentence. This test would not apply to other uses of commas.

Maybe a better version of this test would be to replace the commas with a matching pair of parenthesis (brackets), as this would help to determine whether or not the commas are being used parenthetically or simply to separate different parts of the sentence.

Your sentence passes this test: 14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock and the alarmists (knowing they're the biggest contributors) continue to avoid and deny the significance.

But your sentence definitely needs either another comma or possibly even a semicolon after "livestock", to separate the livestock from the alarmists. You should also pluralize "emission".

Possibly you could have reduced the ambiguity of the sentence by using "but" instead of "and", but you'd still need the additional comma.


*Using the third definition of "parenthetical" on the linked page.
 
No. "continue" doesn't agree with any subject I can tease out of your first sentence.

As you noticed, the subject, "alarmists" was incongruent in the first sentence.

Well, no. The first clause has a subject and predicate so it's fine. After the "and" you have an entire new clause and "continue" is the predicate for "alarmists".

If the "they" actually refers to livestock, it's just a crappy sentence because it's unclear but grammatically, the number is the subject and are is the predicate of the first clause. In the second clause alarmists is the subject and continue is the predicate. In that structure, there is no antecedent confusion - or shouldn't be. It's just a poor way to word it. Instead of "knowing they're..." it should say "knowing this...". That would get rid of the confusion.
 
I had a thesis adviser who filled my papers with so much red ink that by the time I finished revising them to his exact specifications, he was ready for more red ink! :D

So, this is right up my alley! I was much more bothered by the lack of 's' after 'emission', but as others have pointed out, the sentence as written is comprehensible, albeit awkward.

I would rewrite it as:
14.5% of anthropogenic GHG emissions are from livestock. The alarmists know this, but continue to deny that livestock are significant contributors.

Note: Commas are wayyyy overused in writing. The best practice is almost always to break down into multiple sentences. Also, note that the sentence you quote is somewhat ambiguous without additional information. "14.5%" doesn't immediately imply "biggest/largest contributor" unless it is made clear that all the other contributors are smaller percentages.
 
Wait, the alarmists are the biggest contributors to the emissions? Is the sentence supposed to tongue-in-cheek, referring to alarmists as blowing hot air or something? Surely, the "they're" is supposed to refer to the livestock, even though the original sentence doesn't have it that way. A pronoun always refers to the immediately preceding noun.

Also, as to the commas, the original sentence has two independent phrases. "14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock" and "the alarmists, knowing they're the biggest contributors, continue to avoid and deny the significance." These must be separated by a comma. As another poster already pointed out, it otherwise says that "14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock and the alarmists . . ."

BTW, Livestock and the Alarmists are trending on Spotify.

:jaw-dropp

:p

Yes it was a tongue in cheek reference, but when you put it that way it's also a double entendre of sorts.

eta: now I can't stop reading the sentence as if the band Livestock and the Alarmists are causing global warming. Thanks :)
 
Last edited:
“What is this thing called, love?”

“What is this thing called love?”

Woman... woe-man... whoooa-man. She was a thief, you got to belief, she stole my heart and my cat. Judy, Betty, Josie and those hot Pussycats... they made me horny, on Saturday morny... girls of cartoo-ins will leave me in ruins... I want to to be Betty's Barney. Jane... get me off this crazy thing... called love. -Charlie Mackenzie

:D
 
Last edited:
I had a thesis adviser who filled my papers with so much red ink that by the time I finished revising them to his exact specifications, he was ready for more red ink! :D

So, this is right up my alley! I was much more bothered by the lack of 's' after 'emission', but as others have pointed out, the sentence as written is comprehensible, albeit awkward.

I would rewrite it as:
14.5% of anthropogenic GHG emissions are from livestock. The alarmists know this, but continue to deny that livestock are significant contributors.

Note: Commas are wayyyy overused in writing. The best practice is almost always to break down into multiple sentences. Also, note that the sentence you quote is somewhat ambiguous without additional information. "14.5%" doesn't immediately imply "biggest/largest contributor" unless it is made clear that all the other contributors are smaller percentages.

You know what's really going to blow your mind? I think "technically" you don't need the "s" because GHG is already plural. Anyone know?
 
Last edited:
But your sentence definitely needs either another comma or possibly even a semicolon after "livestock", to separate the livestock from the alarmists.

The intent was to put the blame for the livestock emissions back on the alarmists. So it was kind of meant to read like:

"14.5% of all anthropogenic GHG emission are from livestock and the alarmists, knowing they're responsible for this, continue to avoid and deny the significance."

By definition "anthropogenic" means "from human activity", so the livestock can't be responsible or contribute.
 
You know what's really going to blow your mind? I think "technically" you don't need the "s" because GHG is already plural. Anyone know?

No. GHG is a modifier, standing for "greenhouse gas" not "greenhouse gases" in this case. The subject of the clause is "emissions," which is plural and needs a plural verb.
 
No. GHG is a modifier, standing for "greenhouse gas" not "greenhouse gases" in this case. The subject of the clause is "emissions," which is plural and needs a plural verb.

I don't believe this is correct. CO2 is a Greenhouse gas but you have to specify that, otherwise GHG includes all of them, CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide etc. By default it's plural.
 
I don't believe this is correct. CO2 is a Greenhouse gas but you have to specify that, otherwise GHG includes all of them, CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide etc. By default it's plural.

Either/or. It's still an adjectival phrase modifying "emissions". Emissions is the subject. The verb has to agree with the subject, not its modifiers.
 
Back
Top Bottom