Chapter 18
IN THIS CHAPTER
Ensuring that parts of a sentence are balanced
Avoiding shifts in tense, person, and voice
Deciphering rules for paired conjunctions and comparisons
In the world of grammar, parallelism refers to order and balance, the quality a sentence has when it flows smoothly. No parallel sentence starts out in one direction (toward, say, Grandma’s house) only to veer suddenly off the road (perhaps to a tattoo parlor two states away). This chapter provides a road map and some practice drives to keep your sentences on track.
When a sentence is parallel, everything performing the same function in the sentence has the same grammatical identity. If you have two subjects, for example, and one is an infinitive (to ski), the other one must be an infinitive also (to fracture). You can’t mix and match; to ski and fracturing shouldn’t show up as paired (or part of tripled or quadrupled or whatever) subjects. Check out these sentences:
In checking for parallelism, don’t worry about terminology. Just read the sentence aloud and listen: Parallel sentences sound balanced, but nonparallel sentences sound lopsided.
Q.
A. II. Each sentence has three subjects. In option I the first two subjects are verb forms ending in -ing (gerunds, in official grammar terminology), but the third is an infinitive (the to form of a verb). Mismatch! Option II turns the subjects into infinitives (to speed, to spray, to get). When the subjects match, the sentence is parallel.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
My driving instructor explained to me at least a thousand times that shifting at the wrong time was bad for (a) the engine and (b) his nerves. I did my best, though the grinding noise echoing through the car wasn’t always my teeth. Sentences should stay in gear also, unless the meaning requires a shift. Every sentence has tense (the time of the action or state of being), person (who’s talking or being talked about), and voice (active or passive). A sentence has a parallelism problem when one of those qualities shifts unnecessarily from, say, present to past tense, or from first person (the I form) to third (the he or they form). Nor should a sentence drift from singular to plural without good reason. For help with verb tense, check out Chapters 4 and 15. Pronoun tips appear in Chapter 5.
Some shifts are crucial to the meaning of the sentence. If “I hit you” and then “he hits me,” the shift from one person to another is part of what I’m trying to say. That sort of sentence is fine. What’s not parallel is a statement like “I hit him because you always want to be aggressive in tight situations,” where the you is a stand-in for I or everyone.
Q.
A. II. The first sentence unwisely shifts from active voice (Miranda read) to passive (slides … were shown). Verdict: Stripped gears, caused by a shift from active to passive. The second option changes were shown by me to I showed. Now both verbs are active, and the sentence is parallel.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Some words that join ideas (conjunctions, in grammar-speak) arrive in pairs. Specifically, either/or, neither/nor, not only/but also, and both/and work as teams. Your job is to check that the elements linked by these words have the same grammatical identity (two nouns, two noun-verb combos, two adjectives, or two whatevers). If they don’t, your sentence has a parallelism problem. Check out the following examples, in which the linked elements are underlined and the conjunctions are italicized:
The linked elements in the first parallel example are both adjectives and infinitives. In the second parallel example, the linked elements are nouns created from the -ing form of a verb — in grammar terminology, a gerund. (You don’t really need to know the grammatical terms.) If you say the underlined sections aloud, your ear tells you that they match. In the first nonparallel sentence, the first element is just a description, but the second contains a subject/verb combo (a clause). Nope! Grammar crime! In the second nonparallel sentence, the first element is a gerund and the second an infinitive (to plus a verb). Grammar jail for you!
Q.
A. II, III. In option I, swooping over my head and surprise in the garbage pail don’t match. The first element has a verb form (swooping), and the second doesn’t. Option II pairs the bird swooping over my head and the surprise awaiting me in the garbage pail. They match, so this sentence is correct. Option III correctly matches bird that swooped to surprise that I found.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
Did you ever hear someone dismiss an argument by saying that it’s comparing “apples and oranges”? The implication is that you can’t compare things that don’t fall into the same category. Grammar frowns on comparisons of “apples and oranges,” too, and insists that the grammatical identity of whatever you’re comparing be the same. Three sets of words — more/than, but not, and as well as — sometimes create comparisons. When you see these words, check for parallel structure. Take a look at these examples:
Q.
A. I, II. Surprised? Moving before dinner doesn't affect the fact that Fred and Monica are both nouns and therefore make a parallel comparison with the connector as well as.
38
39
40
41
42
Writing parallel sentences doesn’t require the stars to be aligned; it just takes some practice. See how you did on the questions in this chapter by checking your answers here.
1 I. Option I relies on three adjectives (green, skintight, and stretchy) to describe Robert’s favorite pants. Option II isn’t parallel because the original sentence links two adjectives (green and skintight) with a verb form (made of stretch fabric). Two adjectives + one verb form = penalty box.
2 I. Option II isn’t parallel because the and joins two verbs (eases and zipping) that don’t match. In option I, and links eases and zips, so option I is parallel.
3 II. Option I matches up with difficulty (a prepositional phrase) and forcefully (a description). These two are headed for the divorce court. Option II pairs two nouns (difficulty and force).
4 II. Option I joins a noun, trouble, and a whole clause (that’s the grammar term for a statement with a subject/verb combo), how he feels uncomfortable. Not parallel! Option II links two nouns, trouble and discomfort.
5 I, II. Option I yokes two -ing forms (sliding and coasting). Verdict: legal. Option II links two infinitives (to slide and to coast): also legal.
6 I. You’re okay with two nouns (clothing and equipment), the combo you see in Option I. You’re not okay with a noun (clothing) and a clause (how some equipment is used), which is what you have in option II.
7 II. The or in Option I links with a good parka and wearing a warm face mask. The second term includes a verb form (wearing), and the first doesn’t, so you know that the parallelism is off. In option II, parka and face mask are linked. Because they’re both nouns, the parallelism works.
8 II. The first option isn’t parallel because is useful and doing don’t match. The second option pairs is and does, two verbs.
9 I. Rip-free is an adjective, but without stains is a phrase, so option II doesn’t work. Option I has two adjectives (rip-free and clean).
10 II. Option II matches two nouns (robbery and mugging). It’s parallel. Option I mistakenly pairs robbing and to mug (a gerund and an infinitive), resulting in a sentence that isn’t parallel.
11 II. Option I falls off the parallel tracks because speed is a noun and to be private is an infinitive. Option II joins two nouns, speed and privacy.
12 I. In option I, the subjects are both clauses; that is, they’re both expressions containing subjects and verbs. (Think of a clause as a mini-sentence that can sometimes, but not always, stand alone.) Two clauses = legal pairing. Option II derails because the first subject (stashing stolen money) is a gerund, and the second is based on an infinitive (to put).
13 II. The first option links a plain-vanilla-no-sprinkles description (honest) with an -ing verb form (not having the inclination to rob anyone). No sale. The second option matches two descriptions, honest and inclined.
14 II. Option II matches two past tense verbs, wrote and edited. Option I matches a past (wrote) and a past perfect (had edited) without any valid reason for a different tense, so it isn’t parallel.
15 I, II. Pair two infinitives (to ski and to pursue) and you’re fine. You can also pair the gerunds skiing and pursuing for an alternate correct answer. Both options are correct.
16 I. The first option stays with you, the second person. It’s correct. Option II fails because it shifts from anyone (third person) to you (second person).
17 I, II. Two questions appear in each sentence. In option I, the questions are active. In option II, the questions are passive. No shifts, no problem.
18 II. Option I sentence shifts unnecessarily from active (provides) to passive (will be explained). Option II stays in active voice. True, option II contains a shift from third person (talking about the Amoeba Family) to first, but that shift is justified by meaning.
19 I. The tenses in option I change, but the changes make sense. The first part is present and the second is past, because you may not know right now about something that happened previously. The meaning justifies the shift. Option I also has another shift, also justified, from active (may not know) to passive (was named). Because the person giving the name is unknown, the passive is correct. The problem with option II is that the sentence shifts inappropriately from present tense (may not know) to conditional (would have) for no logical purpose.
20 I. The first sentence is parallel because it stays in active voice (they split, organisms name). Option II moves passive (split has been made) to active (they name). The shift isn’t justified by meaning, so II doesn’t work.
21 II. Option II is all active voice, so it’s correct. In option I, you have a shift from passive (was called) to active (called).
22 I. Option I is parallel because it stays in third person, talking about Amy, Bea, and they. Option II shifts from third (Amy Bea) to second (you).
23 II. The first verb in option I is past, but the second shifts illogically to the future. Penalty box! In option II, the past tense favored is matched with a conditional (would notice), but that change is logical because Amy is attaching a condition to her choice of name.
24 I. Two active verbs (thought, neglected) make option I parallel. Option II improperly shifts from active (thought) to passive (was neglected).
25 II. The first sentence has a meaningless tense shift, from past (opted) to present (wants). The second stays in past tense (opted, wanted).
26 II. Option II has no pronouns and therefore no pronoun problems. Option I shifts from third person (everyone) to first (our). Nope. Not parallel!
27 I. The verbs in option I (should have, can remember) stay active, jogging at least an hour a day. The shift from active in option II (should have) to passive (can be remembered) isn’t a good idea.
28 I. In option I, both actions are in the future (will change, when she becomes). Option II contains an illogical tense shift. The first verb is future (will change) and the second is past (became), placing the sentence in some sort of time warp and out of the realm of parallel structure.
29 II. Option II stays in plural (teenagers, they), but Option I improperly shifts from third person (a teenager) to first (we, our).
30 I. Sitting is parallel to having, so option I is correct. Option II pairs sitting with having had — an unnecessary change in tense.
31 I. The paired conjunction here is both/and. The first option correctly matches two infinitives (to show and to display). Contrast the correct sentence to option II, which joins a noun (Harley) and an infinitive (to display). Option III fails because both precedes intended (a verb) and the second part of the conjunction, and, precedes an infinitive, to display.
32 III. Option III links two verbs (accompany and stay). The elements joined by either/or in the other options don’t match. Option I tries to pair a noun (Lola) with a verb (stay). Option II links a subject-verb combo (Lulu would accompany) to a verb (stay).
33 II. In option I, neither precedes a description (ahead), and nor precedes a subject-verb combo, presented with the verb first (does Lola). Regardless of the order, the sentence isn’t parallel. Option II correctly links two nouns (Lulu, Lola) with the neither/nor conjunction pair. The last sentence fails the parallelism test because it links a subject-verb (Lulu plans) with a noun (Lola).
34 III. The first option links a noun, screenplays, with a prepositional phrase, about bikers and alien invasions. Nope. The second option isn’t parallel because the first element joined by not only/but also includes a verb (writes) but the second doesn’t. Option III correctly joins two prepositional phrases.
35 I. Here you’re working with both/and. In option I, each half of the conjunction pair precedes a noun (talent, award). In option II both precedes is, a verb, but no verb follows the and. In option III, both precedes is (a verb), and and precedes award (a noun). Options II and III aren’t parallel.
36 III. The conjunction pair, not only/but also, links two verbs (scorns, refuses) in the correct sentence, option III. Option I places not only in front of Lola scorns (a subject-verb pair), and the but also in front of a verb (scorns). Nope. The second sentence joins a noun, awards, to a verb, scorns. Mismatch!
37 I. The neither/nor combo in option I precedes two nouns in the sentence (award, trophy). Verdict: parallel. The second option joins a subject-verb combo (award has) and a noun (tattoo). Option II is not parallel. Option III places neither in front of a verb, has, and nor in front of a noun, tattoo.
38 I, II. But not joins two infinitives (to whip, to clean) and two gerunds (whipping, cleaning) in these sentences. Because they match, they’re parallel.
39 II. Option I links a subject-verb statement (that cooking is creative) with a noun (cleaning). Penalty box! Option II joins two subject-verb statements (that cooking is creative and that cleaning is not). Option II is parallel.
40 I. Option I links two prepositional phrases (in justice and in revenge) to make a parallel comparison. Option II pairs interested in justice and he is in revenge. The first element lacks a subject-verb combo, which the second element has. Therefore, option II isn’t parallel.
41 I. Two adjectives, capable and responsible, make option I parallel. Option II pairs an adjective (capable) with a subject-verb statement (he is responsible). Nope. Option II isn’t parallel.
42 II. The expression more than joins who loves to eat with liking paperwork. Option I is a mismatch. Option II correctly links who loves to eat and he likes paperwork, two subject-verb statements. Option II is correct.
Here are the answers to the “Overachievers” section:
1 You may change complaining to to complain, as I did, or you may change to be to being. Either change makes a parallel sentence.
2 People is plural, but he is singular. Change he to they and you’ve got a parallel sentence.
3 Each part of the not only/but also pair should precede the same grammatical element — in this case, prepositional phrases.
4 The and may link was and took, two verbs, but not a verb (was) and a subordinate clause (that he took). Did I catch you with more rude than respectful? The expression more than is correctly employed here, linking two adjectives.
5 After the correction, each half of the conjunction pair either/or precedes a noun. In the original, the either comes before a verb (be) and the or before a noun.
6 The original sentence switches from active (I demand) to passive (be taken … by you). The corrected version avoids the shift.
7 The original shifts from present perfect tense (have written) to future (will say) for no good reason. The correction is in past tense, but that tense is justified by the meaning of the sentence.
8 Angry is an adjective, but in the mood is a phrase. Ready, an adjective, makes the sentence parallel. Other adjectives, such as willing, would also work here.
9 Either two infinitives (my correction) or two -ing forms (Moving and canceling) are acceptable here, but not one of each.
10 Two infinitives (to delay, to fire) are legal, but not to delay and a gerund (firing).
18.222.240.21