BONUS USAGE LESSON: "Crestor should not be taken by women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant." Grammatical or not?
Tom I have a poll idea for you. Homage.
The sentence should replace the comma that is between the words nursing and pregnant with the word or.
I would eliminate the last comma.
Not a fan of the Oxford Comma?
Struck and White
Logic trumps Strunk and White. I've proven the need for the Oxford. Omma on several previous polls.
You can fix it with another "who".
I chose correctly but only because I figured this was one that was incorrect, as such bothered you, so you did a poll.
Safe guess, I'll admit! Whenever it comes from a TV commercial, you can assume there's SOMETHING wrong with it! :o)
My guns remain up!
Congrats on your 300th poll!
Thank you! My wife would cite it as proof that I spend WAY too much time on "that darned iPod"! :o)
Hell, I was bothered by the fact that it kills you, I would rather be depressed.
LOL this one's for cholesterol, but same principle!
I'm so happy that I am not the only person who was bothered by the wording of this commercial.
Separated at birth!
I think it is, even though I would phrase the information differently
Did I hear a gantlet thrown down? (Just kidding, buddy!). :-P
Common misconception. A gauntlet is a path between two lines of (originally) Indians with weapons, which one is made to run through as a test or punishment. A gantlet is a Medieval knight's glove, which he would "throw down" to challenge someone. :o)
Many spell these words the same, but they have different etymologies - Medieval French (gantlet) and Swedish (gauntlet). The British spelling of "gauntlet" for gantlet is very old, and influenced the alteration of a similar Swedish word to gauntlet.
Clint Eastwood was the gauntlet. No challenge tom. Lol
Tom - you mean I should believe some highly educated brilliant language expert over the spelling of gauntlet (picture of metal glove) in a free online game by developers living mostly in Ukraine? Oh, alright. :-)
Don't forget comma placement.
That was my thought but it appears to be the wrong error. :(
One implied ARE too many (or is that: too much) ...
"Any more implied ARRs and ye'll walk the plank, ye scurvy knave! Arr!"
nouns or pronouns are numbers, verbs are operators, and everything else is the parentheses, exponents, roots, etc. So it doesn't supoort your attempt to make a pronoun distributive.
I know that was a lot. But it's comparing the grammars of
two different languages, and thus requiring bilingual thought. :o)
ANSWER - PLEASE READ: First, this is my 300th poll since April 2012. Yay! Now, the statement, issued by the FDA of the Federal gov't., is definitely incorrect and ungrammatical. The problem is faulty parallelism in the construction of the list.
Take another look. "...women who are nursing, pregnant, or may become pregnant." We may use the "distributive property" from math to see the problem:
WOMEN WHO ARE nursing,
WOMEN WHO ARE pregnant, or
WOMEN WHO ARE may become pregnant.
Participle is a given, the nor is my bugaboo.
Now, I don't know about you, but I've never known a woman who was may become pregnant. So here's the correct version: "Crestor should not be used by women who are nursing or pregnant or who may become pregnant." Now we have the three types of women:
May was Chinese.
WOMEN who ARE nursing or
WOMEN who ARE pregnant, OR
WOMEN who MAY BECOME pregnant. Note that the verbs are in all caps here to show clearly that only two items are naturally parallel. If you earned a gold star on this one, you're very good!
Now, if you got all that right AND noticed that the final "or" is correct and shouldn't be a "nor," and can explain why, you earn two gold stars cum laude.
it's or instead of nor because the negation odd on the action, while the conditions (pregnant, nursing, etc.) are affirmative.
I think you're incorrectly assuming all phrases follow ARE, but they follow WHO:
WOMEN WHO are nursing,
WOMEN WHO are pregnant, or
WOMEN WHO may become pregnant.
or as in
May become pregnant.
Albion, I don't know where you went to school, but the first two are predicate nominatives. They follow the verb "are." Women who = pregnant,
Women who = nursing.
Women who may = pregnant.
That third one switches to subjunctive mood and the verb form
is "become" instead of "are." I used the equals signs to show that all three are forms of the verb "to be." Good try, though.
FF - I'm giving you two presumptive gold stars, because I think Siri messed with your response.
Of course, now I want some gold stars! I still think I'm right, though, because language changes over time and experts come up with rules to describe how language behaves after the fact.
And obviously I think I'm right because I don't really know the rules!
Haha! Two gold stars just because I LIKE you! ✯✯
oh boy. it's "or" instead of "nor" because the negation is on the action (should not use), and applies only if the conditions are met in the affirmative. if she is nursing (affirmative), pregnant (affirmative), or if she may become so (affirmative).
and albion, if the who were the distributive term, the sentence would read: who are nursing, who pregnant, or who may become pregnant.
To belabor this further, can't anything be distributive? It would be wrong if it were "women who ARE: nursing, pregnant or may become pregnant" because then the last clause would essentially become "women who ARE may become pregnant.l
But it's correct as "women WHO: are nursing, are pregnant or may become pregnant" because the correct verb is in the right place, making WHO distributive, not ARE.
I'm going to tap out and hide behind English not being my first language.
FF - I'm guessing French?
a good guess, but Flemish.
Are you sure it wasn't standard Belgium Dutch? ;0)
Albion, I can see my math analogy just confused things, but note that the distributive property only works with operators like +,-, X, or /, which are all verbs. That was why the analogy was appropriate - because in English, we need to realize that
FF - Wow! So cool!