0

Is this a correct English sentence?

The once inviting deciduous flora of northern Minnesota had left but a skeleton of its former self in its place; The ominous branches of which stretched across the dimly-lit road, as if they were only mere seconds from snatching on-coming vehicles from off the ground.

My grandmother thinks otherwise but I believe it is.

Barmar
  • 20,741
  • 1
  • 38
  • 59
Isaac G
  • 1
  • 2
    It's okay save for the capital letter following the semicolon. – Ricky Apr 19 '17 at 15:19
  • I don't see a subject for portion following the semicolon as written. Changing that to its place; its ominous branches stretched... would correct this. – Davo Apr 19 '17 at 16:26
  • as if they were only mere seconds What does this mean? – mahmud k pukayoor Apr 19 '17 at 16:37
  • @mahmudkoya - It means that the ominous branches looked like they could, in mere seconds, snatch (grab) on-coming vehicles. – Davo Apr 19 '17 at 19:14
  • 1
    It works if you mean to talk about "the ominous branches of the skeleton of the deciduous flora's former self." Personally, I would say that talking about branches of a "skeleton" is a weird mixture of metaphorical and literal terminology. It's like the skeleton metaphor is abruptly abandoned before the end of the sentece. Skeletons generally aren't described as having branches. – herisson Apr 19 '17 at 20:33
  • @sumelic that actually makes a lot of sense, thank you. I guess I'll change it to read "in its place. Ominous branches stretched..." – Isaac G Apr 20 '17 at 03:19
  • 1
    It seems strange to use this phrasing after a semicolon. "the ominous branches of which" begins a dependent clause, which should be connected to the primary clause with a comma. – Barmar Apr 20 '17 at 20:58

2 Answers2

1

It makes sense if you make some punctuation changes. Semicolons are used to separate two independent clauses, and the clause following the semicolon is a dependent clause. A useful quick rule of thumb for semicolon usage is if the semicolon can be replaced by a comma and a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so), then the semicolon makes sense in the sentence. Since here it does not make sense to say "...in its place, and the ominous branches of which...", a semicolon is not appropriate.

Also, the "The" in the middle of the sentence should not be capitalized.

So instead, you have:

The once inviting deciduous flora of northern Minnesota had left but a skeleton of its former self in its place, the ominous branches of which stretched across the dimly-lit road, as if they were only mere seconds away from snatching on-coming vehicles from off the ground.

This is correct, if a bit run-on.

warrigan
  • 21
-1

Take it out. It makes no sense. It should just be "The ominous branches stretched across..."

ArmandFrvr
  • 22
  • This may correct the grammar / punctuation but changes the intended meaning. These branches appear to be stand-alone. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 19 '17 at 21:56
  • Unless you're implying that the "of which" refers back to "a skeleton", in which case I would say that skeletons don't have branches. – ArmandFrvr Apr 21 '17 at 00:38
  • You could equally well say that the deciduous flora of northern Minnesota had no skeleton to leave. It seems a very poor extended metaphor, but your suggestion doesn't really improve matters. 'Ominous branches ...' or 'The ominous branches of the few remaining trees ...' is better. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 21 '17 at 00:49