Commas and conjunctions

[Miss Mae]

I wish to combine the sentence It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship, and a patrol vessel. The vessels will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area.

But then, if I do, it would result in It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship, and a patrol vessel that will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area.

What must I do to stay true to the original construction?

[Mwita Chacha]

Is there any compelling reason for joining the sentences in the first place. If yes, my instinct is to make away with a full-stop mark after 'vessel' by employing a resumptive-modifier technique as follows: ''It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel, a vessel that will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area.''

[Joe Carillo]

The original statement clearly states that “The vessels will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area,” meaning that both the supply ship and the patrol vessel will be doing so. Mwita Chacha’s use of the singular noun “vessel” as resumptive modifier, while an admirable grammatical attempt, is therefore incorrect.

Here are better ways to combine the two sentences:

Using the conjunction “that” with “both”: “It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel that will both spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area.”

Using the conjunction “which” with “both”: “It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel, both of which will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area.”

However, the above single-sentence rewrites are unable to capture the context of the statement in full. The two sentences are obviously preceded by a statement indicating that more than just the two explicitly mentioned vessels will be involved in the fishing activity, so the following single-sentence rewrite will be more accurate and inclusive:

“All of the vessels, including a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel, will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area.”

We can also use the noun “flotilla” to denote all of the vessels, in which case we can consider coming up with this alternative single-sentence rewrite:

“The flotilla, which includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel, will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area.”

[Miss Mae]

How about It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel, all of which will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area?

But there should be a comma before and, right? Is there no exception in that 'rule'? I always find it uncomfortable to put a comma before this particular coordinating conjunction when there's only one thing involved and getting in my way!

[Joe Carillo]

Regarding this construction of yours, "It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel, all of which will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area," the use of "all" is incorrect because only two vessels are involved; "both" should be used instead, as follows:

"It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel, both of which will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area,"

We should also keep in mind that the above construction would be correct only if the statement preceding this sentence makes it clear that the other vessels in the flotilla would not be involved in the fishing activity. Otherwise, the indefinite pronoun "it" has to be replaced by "all of the vessels" and the sentence needs to reconstructed as follows:

"All of the vessels, including a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel, will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area."

When linking coordinate clauses, the general rule is to put a comma before the second coordinate clause, as in "My fiancee lied to me that time, but I took her word in good faith." But when both coordinate clauses are short and simple, the comma can usually be dispensed with, as in "She lied but I believed her."

[Miss Mae]

Uh, oh. Seems I got confused by this statement of yours.

However, the above single-sentence rewrites are unable to capture the context of the statement in full. The two sentences are obviously preceded by a statement indicating that more than just the two explicitly mentioned vessels will be involved in the fishing activity, so the following single-sentence rewrite will be more accurate and inclusive:

“All of the vessels, including a 3,000-tonne supply ship and a patrol vessel, will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area.”

There are no other vessels involved in the fishing activity except for the 3,000-tonne supply ship and patrol vessel, though.

[Joe Carillo]

From the context of the original sentences you presented, there should definitely be other vessels involved in the fishing activity other than the the 3,000-tonne supply ship and patrol vessel. The telltale sign for this is the use of the verb "includes" in your original first sentence. If there were no others except the two, that verb should have been "consists" instead, in which case that sentence should have read as follows:

"It consists of a 3,000-tonne supply ship, and a patrol vessel."

To resolve this matter, I made a Google check of the likely source of the passage you presented and it turns out that what was involved in this situation was indeed an entire fleet.

Here are the pertinent passages from The China Post:

Fishy China fleet hits Spratlys; US supports Manila

BEIJING/MANILA -- A big fleet of Chinese fishing vessels arrived at the disputed Spratly Islands in the South China Sea on Sunday, state media said, amid tensions with its neighbors over rival claims to the area.

The fleet of 30 fishing vessels arrived near the Yongshu Reef in the afternoon after setting off on Thursday from the Chinese province of Hainan, the official Xinhua news agency reported.

Chinese fishing boats regularly travel to the Spratlys, a potentially oil-rich archipelago which China claims as part of its territory on historical grounds.

But the fleet is the largest ever launched from the province, according to the report.

It includes a 3,000-ton supply ship, and a patrol vessel has also traveled to the area to provide protection, the report said. The vessels will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area, it added.

We must keep in mind that when quoting from a composition, we shouldn't take sentences in isolation. We should present them in context to avoid departing from the intended sense.
 

[Miss Mae]

Uh, oh. I thought I could get away with that.

I'm just listing points and keeping details concise on the matter, anyway. Could I still only settle for your third and fourth constructions if the paragraph below is the basis?

A fleet of 30 Chinese fishing vessels—the largest ever launched from Hainan—arrived in Hasa-Hasa Shoal (Half Moon Shoal), to extricate the People’s Liberation Army Missile Frigate No. 560 that got stranded 111 kilometers west of Palawan four days earlier. It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship, and a patrol vessel. The vessels will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area.

[Joe Carillo]

Semantically, my answer is no. The antecedent noun subjects in the sentence preceding the third sentence are "a 3,000-tonne supply ship" and "a patrol vessel." To use the word "vessel" as a higher-level class noun subsuming both "ship" and "vessel" is therefore faulty and confusing.

I can think of only one way to break that semantic impasse: change "patrol vessel" to "patrol boat" in the second sentence. Then it becomes logical to use the higher-level class noun "vessel," although it still needs to be modified with the number "two" in the third sentence to be totally semantically aboveboard, as follows:

"A fleet of 30 Chinese fishing vessels—the largest ever launched from Hainan—arrived in Hasa-Hasa Shoal (Half Moon Shoal), to extricate the People’s Liberation Army Missile Frigate No. 560 that got stranded 111 kilometers west of Palawan four days earlier. It includes a 3,000-tonne supply ship, and a patrol boat. The two vessels will spend the next five to 10 days fishing in the area."

This time it's smooth sailing grammatically and semantically for the entire passage.   

[Miss Mae]

Thank you, Sir!