editing people, opinions?

[winterbadger]

"this, along with these, does that thing"

The commas really belong there set the central clause off; one wouldn't write "this along with these does that thing." But what is that bugger? It's not an appositive (it's in addition, not describing or elucidating). It's not introduced by a conjunction and forming a plural subject (one wouldn't write "This, along with these, do that thing.") I feel as if I know how to punctuate this sentence and what the correct verb agreement is, but I don't know *why* (or, more accurately, how to describe that clause, or even what the construction "along with" is) and it's bugging the heck out of me.

Comments

subordinate, don'tcha know *wink*

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

"along with these" is a subordinate clause, and therefore, not subject to the (ad)verb in "does that thing," which is describing "this."

whew.

Re: subordinate, don'tcha know *wink*

[winterbadger]

I agree, and I'd gotten that far. But *what* is it's construction? It's subordinate, but it's not an appositive; it's not a nonrestrictive clause (removing the clause removes essential information from the sentence). It kind of looks like it's modifying the subject (since it's expanding it). I'm just baffled as to what that clause actually *is*.

Re: subordinate, don'tcha know *wink*

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

does the thing do what it does without the accompanying thing?
are you saying "apples, along with oranges, grow in the desert" or "apples, along with their leaves, grow in the desert?"

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

according to CMOS, if it's a restrictive clause and "along with" is taking the place of "and," it's a conjunction, and a "slovenly" one at that.

[winterbadger]

Well that had been my original thought, but then the commas ought to go away, right, and the whole thing form a compund subject? and that somehow doesn't seem right.

CMOS? I'm guessing that isn't "Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor" or the "Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society"... Oh, duh, you mean Chicago, right. My last jobs didn't buy me one of my own (apparently $40 was too much to spring for a publications coordinator or an assistant editor), so I had none to steal accidentally take away with me when I left.

[mazzie.livejournal.com]

hard to say without the original material, but if it is, indeed, restrictive, I sayeth take out the commas and reconstruct the sentence with "and" instead of "along with" in a way that makes sense.

i was very fortunate when i got this job to get a $500 book-ordering "bonus." i was a little appalled to see that there were no reference manuals at all! CMOS is my favorite, followed by Strunk and White, then etymology dictionaries. i spent some time leafing through Strumpf's The Grammar Bible (which is my personal copy - i'm buying grammar books for pleasure now!) but CMOS saved the day.

[winterbadger]

Strunk & White, source of my favourite editing instruction:

"Omit needless words! Omit needless word! Omit needless words!"

:-)