2

enter image description hereSo I was trying to refresh my memory about grammar using English Grammar for Dummies and I came across this sentence.

A strong light is necessary to sew well

According to the author, this sentence is grammatically incorrect because it lacks a subject even though it sounds right.

Isn't "A strong light" the subject, "is" the linking verb and "necessary" the predicative What is the difference between for example

a strong light is necessary

and 

I am Chinese

Thank you for your time

edit: I added a picture of the relevant page to provide more context.

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
jxhyc
  • 391
  • 2
    It seems fine to me. – Hot Licks Apr 04 '20 at 02:57
  • I don't see anything grammatically wrong with the sentence, although I would be more likely to say "Strong light is necessary..." without the indefinite article. – Donald Hosek Apr 04 '20 at 03:02
  • I would quote directly the author, word for word, provide the title of the book (which you have) along with its page number. I think you have probably missed or omitted some key information without realising. – Mari-Lou A Apr 04 '20 at 03:27
  • 5
    Or else the author was incompetent, as is frequently the case with English textbooks written by English teachers who have learned and teach by rote. – John Lawler Apr 04 '20 at 03:52
  • 3
    Did you cite the title of the book correctly? Are you sure the title is not English Grammar by Dummies? – JK2 Apr 04 '20 at 04:52
  • The excerpt does not say the sentence is ungrammatical. It is really about style and clarity. In other words, the sentence could, or should, begin with: "In order to sew well, a strong light is necessary" – Mari-Lou A Apr 04 '20 at 05:46
  • Note the chapter heading, dangling infinitives, the reader has to fill in the missing piece of information. The author wants is pointing out the lack of clarity. There are more egregious examples. – Mari-Lou A Apr 04 '20 at 05:51
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA If example B in the book is not correct, is this also incorrect? a permanent nationwide cease-fire is essential to tackle COVID-19 (From New York Times). – JK2 Apr 04 '20 at 06:24
  • @JK2 Like I said, it's not about grammaticality, it's about style. The author is misusing the term "correct" in the examples. Consequently, I find absolutely nothing "incorrect" with sentence from the NYT, and I don't see why anyone should. – Mari-Lou A Apr 04 '20 at 07:17
  • 1
    @Mari-LouA Then, the book itself is just plain wrong. I think this question should be closed because it is based on the erroneous book. – JK2 Apr 04 '20 at 07:39
  • @JK2 it could be helpful to have an answer pointing out the difference between style, and grammaticality. Or maybe someone will agree with the author, anything is possible. – Mari-Lou A Apr 04 '20 at 07:44
  • @Mari-LouA It's not even about style. What's wrong with the style of the NYT example? – JK2 Apr 04 '20 at 07:47
  • @JK2 I was referring to the OP's example. There's nothing wrong with the aforementioned NYT. – Mari-Lou A Apr 04 '20 at 07:50
  • @Mari-LouA Please tell me what's wrong with the style of OP's example? I don't see anything wrong with it. – JK2 Apr 04 '20 at 07:58
  • This thread {Dangling participles} contains a balanced view of the hyperprescriptivism involved in the blanket censuring of all dangling participles, and by extension other 'misplaced' items. If the sentence's meaning is clear, and it doesn't sound ridiculous, one has to be careful when labelling it unacceptable. Are 'It was a proud day for her parents' and 'He had a quiet pint' unacceptable? // Here, a retrievable agent is implied. (However, I'd prefer a different style myself.) – Edwin Ashworth Apr 04 '20 at 14:34

4 Answers4

3

I think this is a typical case of hypercorrection.

The author claims that

(1) To sew well, a strong light is necessary.

is incorrect because you don't know who's sewing. The correction suggested is inserting the agent you. So, let's just do that to see if that's the problem.

(2) For you to sew well, a strong light is necessary.

I'm sure the author would say (2) is now correct. But I'd say For you here is not required and is even bordering on redundant, if you're referring to any person in general by you.

Then, why did the author think you is necessary when it isn't? Because the author doesn't know this:

Most non-finite clauses have no overt subject, but the interpretation of the clause requires that an understood subject be retrieved from the linguistic or non-linguistic context.

-The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 65).

(Boldface mine.)

Since the understood subject you is not retrievable from the linguistic context in (1), the question is whether it is retrievable from the non-linguistic context, by which I'm sure CGEL means knowledge that resides outside the discourse.

And the answer is yes, unless the non-linguistic context dictates that the understood subject is anything but 'any person in general' (e.g., a particular person), in which case the author should have mentioned such non-linguistic context before labeling (1) and its variant as "incorrect", but they didn't.

Community
  • 1
JK2
  • 6,553
1

Basically, the author is either an idiot or has his shorts too tight.

While in a total vacuum the sentence would be a bit weird, it would be perfectly idiomatic in the context of, say, a description of how to sew.

In writing, context matters!

Hot Licks
  • 27,508
1

It's not grammatically wrong, it has a grammatical subject:

A strong light is necessary to sew well

The implicated subject is the vocative you:

A strong light is necessary [for you] to sew well

The only example where the grammatical subject is omitted {or grammatically permitted} is in the imperative you form:

(You) Go to Sleep!

However, sometimes people colloquially leave out the grammatical subject and use the implied subject if the context wills it:

[vocative You] Got something to say?
[I] Am too!
[I] Am not!
etc.

I think what the author means it that the implied subject is not clear, but it is evident there is a grammatical subject. Therefore, grammatically OK. The syntax structure of the OP's sentence typically occurs in English proverbs or proverbial sayings:

A picture is worth a thousand words
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Jay
  • 478
0

Just an opinion, not a definite answer.

What I think the author trying to express was;

‘A strong light’ is not the only thing needed to sew well (for the given context it was incomplete, ungramatical).

You need further complement (as in what is or who is) to stand a fact that a ‘person’ which actually does need a light to sew well as for machine, it doesn’t.

MeGrammar
  • 13