The virtue of elliptical sentence constructions

[Joe Carillo]

From Isabel Escoda in Hong Kong (February 22, 2010):

Hello there! As you’ll see below, my brother in SF and I have been discussing your work. He tutors some foreign students in the US. Please explain why he can’t get into your forum, and answer our question about the verb “is” after situation. Many thanks! 

Isabel attached to her e-mail the following exchange of e-mails between her and her brother in San Francisco, California:

On Feb 22, 2010, Isabel written:

Hi, Dick—have I ever sent you this fine website? It’s a big help for English teachers.

Dick Taylor replied: 

I like him but in trying to subscribe to his service, I can’t seem to get beyond “What color is each letter....” —I don’t understand why this is asked to begin with. Will keep trying.

By the way, are you comfortable with his sentence: “The situation then and now are largely the same.”

Isabel replied:

I’m sure that sentence must be a typo error—though the "then & now" probably calls for a plural verb. Good point, I must ask him.

My e-mailed reply to Isabel:

About this sentence construction: "From the language standpoint, of course, the situation then and now are largely the same."
 
Now that you have brought up the point, I realize that this construction indeed could make some people uncomfortable. I am therefore offering the explanation below.
 
Semantically, two situations are referred to in that sentence—the situation before, and the situation now. They are two distinct and separate entities. The scrupulously grammatical way to write that sentence is therefore this: “From the language standpoint, of course, the situation then and the situation now are largely the same. “Here, it’s obvious that two nouns are being compounded into a plural subject, which would then require the plural form of the verb. (It’s not the adverbs “then” and “now” that are being compounded but the two mentions of the noun “situation” as distinct entities.)
 
The sentence construction I used is what is called the elliptical version of that sentence: “From the language standpoint, of course, the situation then and now are largely the same.” It deliberately dropped the second use of the term “the situation” on the presumption that it’s already understood to be there, so there’s no need to repeat it; the reader, who is presumed to be conversant with English, is expected to just supply the missing words in his or her mind. This is done by professional writers to make their sentences more concise and streamlined.
 
Elliptical sentence constructions use the ellipsis, which by definition is the omission of one or more words that are obviously understood but that must be supplied to make a construction grammatically complete. There are at least five forms of the ellipsis: (1) the routinely omitted “that” in modifying clauses, (2) the elliptical noun phrase, (3) the ellipsis of the verb and its objects and complements, (4) the medial ellipsis, and (4) the ellipsis of clause.
 
I'll tick off one example of each to show how the ellipsis works:
 
1. The routinely omitted “that” in modifying clauses:
 
Normal:  “They knew that two years would be the shortest time that they would need to subdue the enemy forces.”
 
Elliptical:  “They knew […] two years would be the shortest time […] they would need to subdue the enemy forces.”
 
2. The elliptical noun phrase:
 
Normal:  “Jennifer asked for the pink blouse but the salesclerk gave her the red blouse.”
 
Elliptical: “Jennifer asked for the pink blouse but the salesclerk gave her the red […].”
 
3. The ellipsis of the verb and its objects and complements:
 
Normal:  “The beleaguered Supreme Court chief justice will fight it to the very end if he could fight it to the very end.”
 
Elliptical:  “The beleaguered Supreme Court chief justice will fight it to the very end if he could […].”
 
4. The medial ellipsis:
 
Normal: “Arlene will take care of the girls and Eduardo will take care of the boys.”
 
Elliptical: “Arlene will take care of the girls and Eduardo […], the boys.”
 
5. The ellipsis of clause:
 
Normal: “They can leave now if they want to leave now.”
 
Elliptical: “They can leave now if they want […].”
 
It takes some practice to get the hang of elliptical usage, but once you get the hang of it, it sounds even better and more idiomatic than normal usage. It’s more professional sounding, too!

[maxsims]

(It’s not the adverbs “then” and “now” that are being compounded but the two mentions of the noun “situation” as distinct entities.)

"Then" and "now" seem to be modifying "situation", a noun.    Should they not be described as adjectives?

[Joe Carillo]

That’s an intriguing point, maxsims!

Let’s look more closely at my original sentence in complete form: “From the language standpoint, of course, the situation then and now are largely the same.”

By virtue of proximity, it would seem that “then and now” as a compound term is modifying the noun situation, in which case that term is functioning as an adjective phrase. If this is the case, however, then there could only be one situation for both “then” and “now,” which is a semantic absurdity. Indeed, even if the situation then and the situation now are largely the same, they remain separate and distinct entities (at least this was my intent when I wrote that sentence).

This is why it seems to me more grammatically and semantically logical to think of “then” and “now” as adverbs modifying the adjective phrase “largely the same,” even if structurally, “then and now” is closer to the noun “situation”—giving the impression that “then and now” is, in fact, an adjective phrase.

We can test either hypothesis by rewriting the sentence this way: ““From the language standpoint, of course, the situation is largely the same then and now.” The meaning is precisely the same, but here, it’s clear that “then and now” is an adverb phrase modifying the adjective phrase “largely the same.” This time, though, the noun “situation” becomes decidedly singular, requiring the singular verb-form “is.” Semantically, the focus is now primarily on “situation” as a singular concept, with everything that follows it in the sentence simply describing its particulars.

I think what this proves is that in the matter of modifying phrases, the English language actually gives wide latitude to the writer as to where to position them best in the sentence—whether for meaning, for stylistic effect, or simply for clarity's sake. Of course, this flexibility gives rise to varying interpretations as to what function a modifying phrase is performing in a sentence: as an adjective, as an adverb, as a noun, perhaps even as a conjunction. Indeed, depending on how they are used and positioned in a sentence, “now” can function as any of the four, and “then” likewise except as a conjunction. Ultimately, how they are perceived to be working in the sentence would depend on the eye and sensibility of the beholder.

[maxsims]

Equally, we can test the hypothesis by rewriting the sentence in its non-ellipted form (as you have done),

“From the language standpoint, of course, the situation then and the situation now are largely the same."

It can hardly be disputed that "then" is modifying one "situation" and "now" is modifying the other.

Ergo, they are adjectives.

BUT, perhaps the grammatically correct non-elliped sentence is, "From the language standpoint, of course, the situation as it existed then and the situation as it exists now are largely the same."

Now, "then" and "now" revert to adverbs!

I agree with you that it's all in the eye of the beholder.