Is there a formal rule for word order when it comes to writing somebody's name and job title?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In the first example, the second sentence has been marked as an error as the name has been written before the job title in the second sentence:
“Primark have succeeded in growing market share. Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
This has been marked as an error and edited, putting job title first and then name:
- “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
I cannot find the rule in English grammar to explain why the first example is wrong. Is the first example really unacceptable? If anyone can help explain the grammar rule I would be very grateful.
grammaticality
asked Nov 30 at 11:58
Праид Джуди
91
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In the first example, the second sentence has been marked as an error as the name has been written before the job title in the second sentence:
“Primark have succeeded in growing market share. Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
This has been marked as an error and edited, putting job title first and then name:
- “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
I cannot find the rule in English grammar to explain why the first example is wrong. Is the first example really unacceptable? If anyone can help explain the grammar rule I would be very grateful.
grammaticality
asked Nov 30 at 11:58
Праид Джуди
91
When you say "has been marked as an error", is this by an editor or by a piece of software? Because, to my eye, there's nothing wrong with it, whereas the second example needs a comma after "company" to be grammatical (and sounds slightly unnatural even then).
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 12:38
It's been marked by an editor in a big publishing house in France. I am hoping for something concrete to send back to explain why I think the first one is OK. A formal grammar rule or words that explain why it is better, because I'm struggling to get the words to explain. There is no missing comma as far as he is concerned. It's as though he's combined the person and the job to be one and the same (no comma).
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 13:01
If there are rules about it, they'll be rules in an organisation's style guide rather than of the English language as a whole.
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 13:17
Yes, but it doesn't make sense, so I'm asking if there is a rule, that's all. I think he's making up his own rules, so I'm curious to know what the general English grammar rule is, if there is one. Or even to find out if there isn't.
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 15:31
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
In the first example, the second sentence has been marked as an error as the name has been written before the job title in the second sentence:
“Primark have succeeded in growing market share. Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
This has been marked as an error and edited, putting job title first and then name:
- “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
I cannot find the rule in English grammar to explain why the first example is wrong. Is the first example really unacceptable? If anyone can help explain the grammar rule I would be very grateful.
grammaticality
asked Nov 30 at 11:58
Праид Джуди
91
In the first example, the second sentence has been marked as an error as the name has been written before the job title in the second sentence:
“Primark have succeeded in growing market share. Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
This has been marked as an error and edited, putting job title first and then name:
- “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
I cannot find the rule in English grammar to explain why the first example is wrong. Is the first example really unacceptable? If anyone can help explain the grammar rule I would be very grateful.
grammaticality
grammaticality
asked Nov 30 at 11:58
Праид Джуди
91
asked Nov 30 at 11:58
Праид Джуди
91
asked Nov 30 at 11:58
Праид Джуди
91
asked Nov 30 at 11:58
Праид Джуди
91
asked Nov 30 at 11:58
Праид Джуди
91
91
When you say "has been marked as an error", is this by an editor or by a piece of software? Because, to my eye, there's nothing wrong with it, whereas the second example needs a comma after "company" to be grammatical (and sounds slightly unnatural even then).
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 12:38
It's been marked by an editor in a big publishing house in France. I am hoping for something concrete to send back to explain why I think the first one is OK. A formal grammar rule or words that explain why it is better, because I'm struggling to get the words to explain. There is no missing comma as far as he is concerned. It's as though he's combined the person and the job to be one and the same (no comma).
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 13:01
If there are rules about it, they'll be rules in an organisation's style guide rather than of the English language as a whole.
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 13:17
Yes, but it doesn't make sense, so I'm asking if there is a rule, that's all. I think he's making up his own rules, so I'm curious to know what the general English grammar rule is, if there is one. Or even to find out if there isn't.
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 15:31
add a comment |
When you say "has been marked as an error", is this by an editor or by a piece of software? Because, to my eye, there's nothing wrong with it, whereas the second example needs a comma after "company" to be grammatical (and sounds slightly unnatural even then).
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 12:38
It's been marked by an editor in a big publishing house in France. I am hoping for something concrete to send back to explain why I think the first one is OK. A formal grammar rule or words that explain why it is better, because I'm struggling to get the words to explain. There is no missing comma as far as he is concerned. It's as though he's combined the person and the job to be one and the same (no comma).
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 13:01
If there are rules about it, they'll be rules in an organisation's style guide rather than of the English language as a whole.
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 13:17
Yes, but it doesn't make sense, so I'm asking if there is a rule, that's all. I think he's making up his own rules, so I'm curious to know what the general English grammar rule is, if there is one. Or even to find out if there isn't.
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 15:31
When you say "has been marked as an error", is this by an editor or by a piece of software? Because, to my eye, there's nothing wrong with it, whereas the second example needs a comma after "company" to be grammatical (and sounds slightly unnatural even then).
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 12:38
When you say "has been marked as an error", is this by an editor or by a piece of software? Because, to my eye, there's nothing wrong with it, whereas the second example needs a comma after "company" to be grammatical (and sounds slightly unnatural even then).
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 12:38
It's been marked by an editor in a big publishing house in France. I am hoping for something concrete to send back to explain why I think the first one is OK. A formal grammar rule or words that explain why it is better, because I'm struggling to get the words to explain. There is no missing comma as far as he is concerned. It's as though he's combined the person and the job to be one and the same (no comma).
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 13:01
It's been marked by an editor in a big publishing house in France. I am hoping for something concrete to send back to explain why I think the first one is OK. A formal grammar rule or words that explain why it is better, because I'm struggling to get the words to explain. There is no missing comma as far as he is concerned. It's as though he's combined the person and the job to be one and the same (no comma).
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 13:01
If there are rules about it, they'll be rules in an organisation's style guide rather than of the English language as a whole.
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 13:17
If there are rules about it, they'll be rules in an organisation's style guide rather than of the English language as a whole.
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 13:17
Yes, but it doesn't make sense, so I'm asking if there is a rule, that's all. I think he's making up his own rules, so I'm curious to know what the general English grammar rule is, if there is one. Or even to find out if there isn't.
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 15:31
Yes, but it doesn't make sense, so I'm asking if there is a rule, that's all. I think he's making up his own rules, so I'm curious to know what the general English grammar rule is, if there is one. Or even to find out if there isn't.
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 15:31
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The use of a comma pair depends on if you want the information to be restrictive or nonrestrictive. Neither is necessarily wrong, but the meaning changes depending on context and use.
Your editor reinterpreted your original sentence, seeming to assume you'd meant the information to be restrictive and modifying the sentence to make it so. Ironically, an editing mistake was made because the second comma should also have been removed. Additionally, it was rephrased in a way that introduced semantic ambiguity-and it's arguably incorrect to use the restrictive in this way in the first place.
This is syntactical:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. The information between the pair of commas is nonessential and could be removed without modifying the meaning of the sentence.
This is syntactical (without the additional comma):
CEO of the company Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
The intention behind this seems to have been to indicate a specific CEO. Unfortunately, it presents two problems.
First, it could be taken to mean that the name of the company is Paul Marchant—not that the CEO of the company is named Paul Marchant.
In context, we know that's not the case because the company name has already been given: Primark. However, the sentence itself is still ambiguous.
To correct that, it should read:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
(The use of the pronoun is fine because it refers back to the company mentioned in the previous sentence.)
The remaining problem, however, is that traditional grammarians would only consider this correct if the company actually has two or more CEOs. (There are companies that have co-CEOs.)
The use of the restrictive is meant to indicate a specific individual between alternatives.
Let's pretend that Primark actually has two CEOs, Paul Marchant and Debbie Villeneuve.
In this case, we can't use your original nonrestrictive wording:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
It's true that Paul Marchant is a CEO of the company, but he's not the CEO of the company.
So, we have to use restrictive wording:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
This clearly indicates that it's CEO Paul Marchant we're talking about and not CEO Debbie Villeneuve.
But what traditional grammarians will argue is that the restrictive should only be used if there actually are multiple things that could satisfy the restriction.
In other words, by using the restrictive, it is making an implicit statement that there are at least two CEOs of the company.
But there is another interpretation that would have been fine:
CEO Paul Merchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
In this version, CEO Paul Merchant is being used at a title. This is the same as saying Queen Elizabeth or President Trump.
In all likelihood, if your original version should have been changed, it should have been changed to this.
In short, it's not clear if your original sentence should have been changed. (It at least seems likely that it was fine as it was.) But if it should have been, your editor shouldn't have changed it to the form that kept an erroneous comma, an ambiguous interpretation, and an arguably incorrect restrictive.
answered Nov 30 at 16:59
Jason Bassford
15k31941
Thank you Jason for your explanation. It is very helpful. There was a typo in his edit and there should have been a second comma. So it should have read “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. Which means the same as the first sentence before editing which was "Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening." So if they both mean the same thing, I don't see why he changed it. The only explanation I can think of is that it is his preferred style, but it's not in a style guide and he says his edit is grammatically correct. I say the first one is too. Perhaps we have to agree that both are grammatically correct. Do you agree?
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
@ПраидДжуди CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening means that the CEO of the company (who happens to be Paul Marchant), is keen to finalize another store opening. Your original version means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be the CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. In one the main subject is the CEO, in the other, the main subject is Paul Marchant. With the added comma in the second, both are grammatically correct. However, the second version should (stylistically) probably have an article. The CEO.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
(It doesn't need an article if used in parentheses—or if it's meant to be written as a headline.)
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
Perfect. Thank you so much.
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The use of a comma pair depends on if you want the information to be restrictive or nonrestrictive. Neither is necessarily wrong, but the meaning changes depending on context and use.
Your editor reinterpreted your original sentence, seeming to assume you'd meant the information to be restrictive and modifying the sentence to make it so. Ironically, an editing mistake was made because the second comma should also have been removed. Additionally, it was rephrased in a way that introduced semantic ambiguity-and it's arguably incorrect to use the restrictive in this way in the first place.
This is syntactical:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. The information between the pair of commas is nonessential and could be removed without modifying the meaning of the sentence.
This is syntactical (without the additional comma):
CEO of the company Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
The intention behind this seems to have been to indicate a specific CEO. Unfortunately, it presents two problems.
First, it could be taken to mean that the name of the company is Paul Marchant—not that the CEO of the company is named Paul Marchant.
In context, we know that's not the case because the company name has already been given: Primark. However, the sentence itself is still ambiguous.
To correct that, it should read:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
(The use of the pronoun is fine because it refers back to the company mentioned in the previous sentence.)
The remaining problem, however, is that traditional grammarians would only consider this correct if the company actually has two or more CEOs. (There are companies that have co-CEOs.)
The use of the restrictive is meant to indicate a specific individual between alternatives.
Let's pretend that Primark actually has two CEOs, Paul Marchant and Debbie Villeneuve.
In this case, we can't use your original nonrestrictive wording:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
It's true that Paul Marchant is a CEO of the company, but he's not the CEO of the company.
So, we have to use restrictive wording:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
This clearly indicates that it's CEO Paul Marchant we're talking about and not CEO Debbie Villeneuve.
But what traditional grammarians will argue is that the restrictive should only be used if there actually are multiple things that could satisfy the restriction.
In other words, by using the restrictive, it is making an implicit statement that there are at least two CEOs of the company.
But there is another interpretation that would have been fine:
CEO Paul Merchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
In this version, CEO Paul Merchant is being used at a title. This is the same as saying Queen Elizabeth or President Trump.
In all likelihood, if your original version should have been changed, it should have been changed to this.
In short, it's not clear if your original sentence should have been changed. (It at least seems likely that it was fine as it was.) But if it should have been, your editor shouldn't have changed it to the form that kept an erroneous comma, an ambiguous interpretation, and an arguably incorrect restrictive.
answered Nov 30 at 16:59
Jason Bassford
15k31941
Thank you Jason for your explanation. It is very helpful. There was a typo in his edit and there should have been a second comma. So it should have read “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. Which means the same as the first sentence before editing which was "Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening." So if they both mean the same thing, I don't see why he changed it. The only explanation I can think of is that it is his preferred style, but it's not in a style guide and he says his edit is grammatically correct. I say the first one is too. Perhaps we have to agree that both are grammatically correct. Do you agree?
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
@ПраидДжуди CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening means that the CEO of the company (who happens to be Paul Marchant), is keen to finalize another store opening. Your original version means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be the CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. In one the main subject is the CEO, in the other, the main subject is Paul Marchant. With the added comma in the second, both are grammatically correct. However, the second version should (stylistically) probably have an article. The CEO.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
(It doesn't need an article if used in parentheses—or if it's meant to be written as a headline.)
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
Perfect. Thank you so much.
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The use of a comma pair depends on if you want the information to be restrictive or nonrestrictive. Neither is necessarily wrong, but the meaning changes depending on context and use.
Your editor reinterpreted your original sentence, seeming to assume you'd meant the information to be restrictive and modifying the sentence to make it so. Ironically, an editing mistake was made because the second comma should also have been removed. Additionally, it was rephrased in a way that introduced semantic ambiguity-and it's arguably incorrect to use the restrictive in this way in the first place.
This is syntactical:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. The information between the pair of commas is nonessential and could be removed without modifying the meaning of the sentence.
This is syntactical (without the additional comma):
CEO of the company Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
The intention behind this seems to have been to indicate a specific CEO. Unfortunately, it presents two problems.
First, it could be taken to mean that the name of the company is Paul Marchant—not that the CEO of the company is named Paul Marchant.
In context, we know that's not the case because the company name has already been given: Primark. However, the sentence itself is still ambiguous.
To correct that, it should read:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
(The use of the pronoun is fine because it refers back to the company mentioned in the previous sentence.)
The remaining problem, however, is that traditional grammarians would only consider this correct if the company actually has two or more CEOs. (There are companies that have co-CEOs.)
The use of the restrictive is meant to indicate a specific individual between alternatives.
Let's pretend that Primark actually has two CEOs, Paul Marchant and Debbie Villeneuve.
In this case, we can't use your original nonrestrictive wording:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
It's true that Paul Marchant is a CEO of the company, but he's not the CEO of the company.
So, we have to use restrictive wording:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
This clearly indicates that it's CEO Paul Marchant we're talking about and not CEO Debbie Villeneuve.
But what traditional grammarians will argue is that the restrictive should only be used if there actually are multiple things that could satisfy the restriction.
In other words, by using the restrictive, it is making an implicit statement that there are at least two CEOs of the company.
But there is another interpretation that would have been fine:
CEO Paul Merchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
In this version, CEO Paul Merchant is being used at a title. This is the same as saying Queen Elizabeth or President Trump.
In all likelihood, if your original version should have been changed, it should have been changed to this.
In short, it's not clear if your original sentence should have been changed. (It at least seems likely that it was fine as it was.) But if it should have been, your editor shouldn't have changed it to the form that kept an erroneous comma, an ambiguous interpretation, and an arguably incorrect restrictive.
answered Nov 30 at 16:59
Jason Bassford
15k31941
Thank you Jason for your explanation. It is very helpful. There was a typo in his edit and there should have been a second comma. So it should have read “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. Which means the same as the first sentence before editing which was "Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening." So if they both mean the same thing, I don't see why he changed it. The only explanation I can think of is that it is his preferred style, but it's not in a style guide and he says his edit is grammatically correct. I say the first one is too. Perhaps we have to agree that both are grammatically correct. Do you agree?
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
@ПраидДжуди CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening means that the CEO of the company (who happens to be Paul Marchant), is keen to finalize another store opening. Your original version means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be the CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. In one the main subject is the CEO, in the other, the main subject is Paul Marchant. With the added comma in the second, both are grammatically correct. However, the second version should (stylistically) probably have an article. The CEO.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
(It doesn't need an article if used in parentheses—or if it's meant to be written as a headline.)
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
Perfect. Thank you so much.
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The use of a comma pair depends on if you want the information to be restrictive or nonrestrictive. Neither is necessarily wrong, but the meaning changes depending on context and use.
Your editor reinterpreted your original sentence, seeming to assume you'd meant the information to be restrictive and modifying the sentence to make it so. Ironically, an editing mistake was made because the second comma should also have been removed. Additionally, it was rephrased in a way that introduced semantic ambiguity-and it's arguably incorrect to use the restrictive in this way in the first place.
This is syntactical:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. The information between the pair of commas is nonessential and could be removed without modifying the meaning of the sentence.
This is syntactical (without the additional comma):
CEO of the company Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
The intention behind this seems to have been to indicate a specific CEO. Unfortunately, it presents two problems.
First, it could be taken to mean that the name of the company is Paul Marchant—not that the CEO of the company is named Paul Marchant.
In context, we know that's not the case because the company name has already been given: Primark. However, the sentence itself is still ambiguous.
To correct that, it should read:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
(The use of the pronoun is fine because it refers back to the company mentioned in the previous sentence.)
The remaining problem, however, is that traditional grammarians would only consider this correct if the company actually has two or more CEOs. (There are companies that have co-CEOs.)
The use of the restrictive is meant to indicate a specific individual between alternatives.
Let's pretend that Primark actually has two CEOs, Paul Marchant and Debbie Villeneuve.
In this case, we can't use your original nonrestrictive wording:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
It's true that Paul Marchant is a CEO of the company, but he's not the CEO of the company.
So, we have to use restrictive wording:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
This clearly indicates that it's CEO Paul Marchant we're talking about and not CEO Debbie Villeneuve.
But what traditional grammarians will argue is that the restrictive should only be used if there actually are multiple things that could satisfy the restriction.
In other words, by using the restrictive, it is making an implicit statement that there are at least two CEOs of the company.
But there is another interpretation that would have been fine:
CEO Paul Merchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
In this version, CEO Paul Merchant is being used at a title. This is the same as saying Queen Elizabeth or President Trump.
In all likelihood, if your original version should have been changed, it should have been changed to this.
In short, it's not clear if your original sentence should have been changed. (It at least seems likely that it was fine as it was.) But if it should have been, your editor shouldn't have changed it to the form that kept an erroneous comma, an ambiguous interpretation, and an arguably incorrect restrictive.
answered Nov 30 at 16:59
Jason Bassford
15k31941
The use of a comma pair depends on if you want the information to be restrictive or nonrestrictive. Neither is necessarily wrong, but the meaning changes depending on context and use.
Your editor reinterpreted your original sentence, seeming to assume you'd meant the information to be restrictive and modifying the sentence to make it so. Ironically, an editing mistake was made because the second comma should also have been removed. Additionally, it was rephrased in a way that introduced semantic ambiguity-and it's arguably incorrect to use the restrictive in this way in the first place.
This is syntactical:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. The information between the pair of commas is nonessential and could be removed without modifying the meaning of the sentence.
This is syntactical (without the additional comma):
CEO of the company Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
The intention behind this seems to have been to indicate a specific CEO. Unfortunately, it presents two problems.
First, it could be taken to mean that the name of the company is Paul Marchant—not that the CEO of the company is named Paul Marchant.
In context, we know that's not the case because the company name has already been given: Primark. However, the sentence itself is still ambiguous.
To correct that, it should read:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
(The use of the pronoun is fine because it refers back to the company mentioned in the previous sentence.)
The remaining problem, however, is that traditional grammarians would only consider this correct if the company actually has two or more CEOs. (There are companies that have co-CEOs.)
The use of the restrictive is meant to indicate a specific individual between alternatives.
Let's pretend that Primark actually has two CEOs, Paul Marchant and Debbie Villeneuve.
In this case, we can't use your original nonrestrictive wording:
Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening.
It's true that Paul Marchant is a CEO of the company, but he's not the CEO of the company.
So, we have to use restrictive wording:
Its CEO Paul Marchant is keen to finalise another store opening.
This clearly indicates that it's CEO Paul Marchant we're talking about and not CEO Debbie Villeneuve.
But what traditional grammarians will argue is that the restrictive should only be used if there actually are multiple things that could satisfy the restriction.
In other words, by using the restrictive, it is making an implicit statement that there are at least two CEOs of the company.
But there is another interpretation that would have been fine:
CEO Paul Merchant is keen to finalize another store opening.
In this version, CEO Paul Merchant is being used at a title. This is the same as saying Queen Elizabeth or President Trump.
In all likelihood, if your original version should have been changed, it should have been changed to this.
In short, it's not clear if your original sentence should have been changed. (It at least seems likely that it was fine as it was.) But if it should have been, your editor shouldn't have changed it to the form that kept an erroneous comma, an ambiguous interpretation, and an arguably incorrect restrictive.
answered Nov 30 at 16:59
Jason Bassford
15k31941
answered Nov 30 at 16:59
Jason Bassford
15k31941
answered Nov 30 at 16:59
Jason Bassford
15k31941
answered Nov 30 at 16:59
Jason Bassford
15k31941
15k31941
Thank you Jason for your explanation. It is very helpful. There was a typo in his edit and there should have been a second comma. So it should have read “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. Which means the same as the first sentence before editing which was "Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening." So if they both mean the same thing, I don't see why he changed it. The only explanation I can think of is that it is his preferred style, but it's not in a style guide and he says his edit is grammatically correct. I say the first one is too. Perhaps we have to agree that both are grammatically correct. Do you agree?
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
@ПраидДжуди CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening means that the CEO of the company (who happens to be Paul Marchant), is keen to finalize another store opening. Your original version means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be the CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. In one the main subject is the CEO, in the other, the main subject is Paul Marchant. With the added comma in the second, both are grammatically correct. However, the second version should (stylistically) probably have an article. The CEO.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
(It doesn't need an article if used in parentheses—or if it's meant to be written as a headline.)
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
Perfect. Thank you so much.
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
add a comment |
Thank you Jason for your explanation. It is very helpful. There was a typo in his edit and there should have been a second comma. So it should have read “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. Which means the same as the first sentence before editing which was "Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening." So if they both mean the same thing, I don't see why he changed it. The only explanation I can think of is that it is his preferred style, but it's not in a style guide and he says his edit is grammatically correct. I say the first one is too. Perhaps we have to agree that both are grammatically correct. Do you agree?
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
@ПраидДжуди CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening means that the CEO of the company (who happens to be Paul Marchant), is keen to finalize another store opening. Your original version means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be the CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. In one the main subject is the CEO, in the other, the main subject is Paul Marchant. With the added comma in the second, both are grammatically correct. However, the second version should (stylistically) probably have an article. The CEO.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
(It doesn't need an article if used in parentheses—or if it's meant to be written as a headline.)
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
Perfect. Thank you so much.
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
Thank you Jason for your explanation. It is very helpful. There was a typo in his edit and there should have been a second comma. So it should have read “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
Thank you Jason for your explanation. It is very helpful. There was a typo in his edit and there should have been a second comma. So it should have read “Primark have succeeded in growing market share. CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening.”
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. Which means the same as the first sentence before editing which was "Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening." So if they both mean the same thing, I don't see why he changed it. The only explanation I can think of is that it is his preferred style, but it's not in a style guide and he says his edit is grammatically correct. I say the first one is too. Perhaps we have to agree that both are grammatically correct. Do you agree?
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
This means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. Which means the same as the first sentence before editing which was "Paul Marchant, CEO of the company, is keen to finalise another store opening." So if they both mean the same thing, I don't see why he changed it. The only explanation I can think of is that it is his preferred style, but it's not in a style guide and he says his edit is grammatically correct. I say the first one is too. Perhaps we have to agree that both are grammatically correct. Do you agree?
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
@ПраидДжуди CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening means that the CEO of the company (who happens to be Paul Marchant), is keen to finalize another store opening. Your original version means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be the CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. In one the main subject is the CEO, in the other, the main subject is Paul Marchant. With the added comma in the second, both are grammatically correct. However, the second version should (stylistically) probably have an article. The CEO.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
@ПраидДжуди CEO of the company, Paul Marchant, is keen to finalise another store opening means that the CEO of the company (who happens to be Paul Marchant), is keen to finalize another store opening. Your original version means that Paul Marchant (who happens to be the CEO of the company) is keen to finalize another store opening. In one the main subject is the CEO, in the other, the main subject is Paul Marchant. With the added comma in the second, both are grammatically correct. However, the second version should (stylistically) probably have an article. The CEO.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
(It doesn't need an article if used in parentheses—or if it's meant to be written as a headline.)
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
(It doesn't need an article if used in parentheses—or if it's meant to be written as a headline.)
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
Perfect. Thank you so much.
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
Perfect. Thank you so much.
– Праид Джуди
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f475069%2fis-there-a-formal-rule-for-word-order-when-it-comes-to-writing-somebodys-name-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
When you say "has been marked as an error", is this by an editor or by a piece of software? Because, to my eye, there's nothing wrong with it, whereas the second example needs a comma after "company" to be grammatical (and sounds slightly unnatural even then).
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 12:38
It's been marked by an editor in a big publishing house in France. I am hoping for something concrete to send back to explain why I think the first one is OK. A formal grammar rule or words that explain why it is better, because I'm struggling to get the words to explain. There is no missing comma as far as he is concerned. It's as though he's combined the person and the job to be one and the same (no comma).
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 13:01
If there are rules about it, they'll be rules in an organisation's style guide rather than of the English language as a whole.
– jsheeran
Nov 30 at 13:17
Yes, but it doesn't make sense, so I'm asking if there is a rule, that's all. I think he's making up his own rules, so I'm curious to know what the general English grammar rule is, if there is one. Or even to find out if there isn't.
– Праид Джуди
Nov 30 at 15:31