This sentence structure look wrong but...

bonobo_jones · Jan 28, 2009

When choosing a ball for your dog to fetch and catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he can accidentally gulp and choke on.

When choosing a ball for your dog to fetch and catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he can accidentally gulp and choke on it.

Or, simply end the sentence with "choke"? But then it makes the meaning of the sentence ambiguous, somehow.

None of these looks quite right to me and I know I can just change the sentence around. But I can't put my finger on what's clumsy about these, and now I am curious. Are any of these versions even correct? Thanks!

alleycat · Jan 28, 2009

I don't think you really need to explain every detail, so I would probably write it something like:

When choosing a ball for your dog to fetch, make sure it's not so small that he could accidentally choke on it.

In your examples, I think you do need the "it" at the end. And I think "could" would be better than "can" in the sentence.

bonobo_jones · Jan 28, 2009

OK...that makes sense, good point on the redundancy. Thanks! I'll leave out fetch and keep catch in mid air. This is a photo caption, amplifying something in the main text.

Why could instead of can? Both look right to me; I'm probably missing some subtle shade of meaning?

I actually know someone whose GSD choked to death in front of her after she threw a tennis ball at him to catch, and it ended up getting lodged in his throat. She tried but could not get it out.

I kinda make that point in the main text.

bonobo_jones · Jan 28, 2009

When throwing a ball for your dog to catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he could accidentally gulp and choke on it.

Better?

semilargeintestine · Jan 28, 2009

I think it looked better with fetch.

Could and can are modal verbs that express similar meanings. However, in this sentence you are expressing that there is a possibility of choking on a small ball. Can implies that the dog is able to, whereas could indicates that the dog choking on the ball is possible. Go for could.

alleycat · Jan 28, 2009

I think in this case, "could" would express possibility, while "can" would express ability.

If I'm wrong, one of the grammar gurus will come along and correct me.

ETA: SLI was posting while I was typing my reply; I accidentally duplicated his answer.

ComicBent · Jan 28, 2009

A couple of ways ...

When choosing a ball for your dog to fetch and catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he can accidentally gulp and choke on.

Correct forms:

When choosing a ball for your dog to fetch and catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he can accidentally gulp it down and choke on it.

When choosing a ball for your dog to fetch and catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he can accidentally gulp it down and choke.

The word down makes the sentence a little more natural. Do not leave the word on in the sentence without the object it (standing for ball).

bonobo_jones · Jan 28, 2009

When throwing a ball for your dog to catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he could accidentally gulp it down and choke.

I like this version! I'm leaving out fetch, because I just used it in the next caption, where it's going to be hard to change. (This is a book with almost 500 photos, and it's tough coming up with fresh captions for each one!)

And THANK you for clarifying the difference between could and can. I am putting that in a sticky at the top of my ms.

semilargeintestine · Jan 28, 2009

No problem. I love grammar, so this forum is great for me. The way you worded it without fetch is fine, especially if it's used again so quickly.

alleycat · Jan 28, 2009

bonobo_jones said:
When throwing a ball for your dog to catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he could accidentally gulp it down and choke.

An alternate:

When throwing a ball for your dog to catch in mid air, make sure the ball is not so small that he could accidentally gulp it down and choke.

semilargeintestine · Jan 28, 2009

I just noticed the "gulp it down and choke" part. Is this necessary? I feel like you could just write "he could accidentally choke" and that would be fine. Is there a reason you have it written that way?

bonobo_jones · Jan 28, 2009

alleycat said:
An alternate:

When throwing a ball for your dog to catch in mid air, make sure the ball is not so small that he could accidentally gulp it down and choke.

Hey, "...the ball is not so small..." rhymes.

And because I'm tired and have been at this captioning for hours, I'm starting to giggle every time I write the words ball or balls. LOL.

alleycat · Jan 28, 2009

bonobo_jones said:
Hey, "...the ball is not so small..." rhymes.

I didn't really notice that, but you're right.

If you can fit "fall" and "call" in there somewhere you'd have a poem! ;-)

bonobo_jones · Jan 28, 2009

semilargeintestine said:
I just noticed the "gulp it down and choke" part. Is this necessary? I feel like you could just write "he could accidentally choke" and that would be fine. Is there a reason you have it written that way?

Kinda. I didn't want it to sound like merely having a ball in his mouth would make him run the risk of choking...the gulping part complements the main text. Basically the way it can happen: person hurls ball at dog. Dog misjudges and doesn't catch the ball right. Instead it hurtles right down his gullet and that's how he can choke. So...well... I guess gulping implies volition, maybe. Shoot, I dunno. This is the first draft and is yet to be shredded by the editors.

I should also mention that I'm under a fairly strict word count on all elements of these books. So every time I change something, I have to tweak something else to keep the word count straight.

bonobo_jones · Jan 28, 2009

alleycat said:
I didn't really notice that, but you're right.

If you can fit "fall" and "call" in there somewhere you'd have a poem! ;-)

Oh great. Now you have me thinking up dirty limericks.

Juliette Wade · Jan 28, 2009

I don't think you have a volition problem with "gulp it down." At a certain point, there's a natural reflex of swallowing that's triggered by the presence of an object in the throat - if you can't get it back up, get it down!

I wonder about your project. Is is supposed to be instructive or humorous? At the moment it sounds more instructive.

bonobo_jones · Jan 29, 2009

Instructive. That one sentence doesn't really reflect the overall voice - fairly informal, and I do interject humor. But because these books are very visual - two color photos per page - the text has to work hard, be information dense (no fluff) and not repeat information depicted in the photographs. So it's a bit of a balancing act.

And you're correct in your definition of "gulp." It doesn't necessarily imply volition. I was tired last night when I wrote that question, and what I was writing was starting to not make any sense to me!

Juliette Wade said:
I don't think you have a volition problem with "gulp it down." At a certain point, there's a natural reflex of swallowing that's triggered by the presence of an object in the throat - if you can't get it back up, get it down!

I wonder about your project. Is is supposed to be instructive or humorous? At the moment it sounds more instructive.

ideagirl · Jan 29, 2009

bonobo_jones said:
OK...that makes sense, good point on the redundancy. Thanks! I'll leave out fetch and keep catch in mid air. This is a photo caption, amplifying something in the main text.

Regardless of the photo, I would ditch the "in mid-air" (which, by the way, is one of two correct spellings [mid-air or midair]--"mid air" is not correct). It just doesn't need to be there--not because it's redundant, but because it's irrelevant whether the dog is catching the ball in mid-air or fetching it on the ground or in whatever or whatever--regardless of where the dog is catching/fetching it, a ball that's too small can choke the dog.

If you leave the "mid-air" stuff in, your sentence makes it sound like that's the only situation where a too-small ball could be dangerous. But that's not the case--if the dog is really getting into the game, he's probably breathing heavily and he could chomp at the ball so enthusiastically that it goes down his throat... regardless of whether the ball's on the ground, in the air or in water.

bonobo_jones said:
Why could instead of can? Both look right to me; I'm probably missing some subtle shade of meaning?

It's just usually how risks are phrased. "Avoid using lead paint in your house, because your children could contract lead poisoning." The point is that the risk is possible (it "could" happen), rather than that the dog is capable of ("can") choking or the child is capable of getting poisoned.

Prawn · Jan 31, 2009

As far as the original question:

When choosing a ball for your dog to fetch and catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he can accidentally gulp and choke on.

When choosing a ball for your dog to fetch and catch in mid air, make sure it’s not so small that he can accidentally gulp and choke on it.

The longer the sentence, the heavier the processing load is on the mind of the speaker/writer, and the more likely it is that pronouns will be included. They are called resumptive pronouns. Consider

She is the girl that she plays baseball.

That sentence is pretty bad in most varieties of English, but the more deeply the sentence is embedded, the more acceptable it becomes:

Who is the girl that she plays baseball?

This is already marginally more acceptable.

Make sure you get a ball which is large enough when you are choosing a toy at the pet store that your dog can catch it in mid air with out being in danger of choking.

The longer these sentences are, the more natural it is to put these pronouns in. This doesn't have to do with rules of grammar such as Strunk and White, but rather the processing power of the human brain. It is sort of like why phone numbers are 7 numbers long instead of 20.

However, just because a sentence is acceptable grammatically does not mean it is a good sentence. As writers, we should write sentences that are both grammatical and good.

This sentence structure look wrong but...

bonobo_jones

Covered in dog hair

alleycat

Still around

bonobo_jones

Covered in dog hair

bonobo_jones

Covered in dog hair

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000

alleycat

Still around

ComicBent

bonobo_jones

Covered in dog hair

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000

alleycat

Still around

semilargeintestine

BassGirl 5000

bonobo_jones

Covered in dog hair

alleycat

Still around

bonobo_jones

Covered in dog hair

bonobo_jones

Covered in dog hair

Juliette Wade

Interprets for aliens

bonobo_jones

Covered in dog hair

ideagirl

Prawn

Writing is finite,revising infinite