Bringing plurals into alignment (features explosions)

Status
Not open for further replies.

slcboston

Pasture-ized
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
50,318
Reaction score
29,062
Location
Second Star To The Right
Bit of a conundrum in the document I'm editing atm...

I have this line, which isn't mine, I hasten to add:

For instance, gasoline explosions in mines, building collapse on construction sites, accidents while operating a machine; workplace fires and so on.

and as you will note, I have "explosions" "accidents" and "fires" ... with that pesky "collapse" in there, which I've bolded for convenience.

I started to edit it to "collapses" but, while that's a word, I have a hunch it's not going to work here grammatically.

So, as I'm doing this on 6 hours of sleep and not my usual wordsmithing self, I'm throwing this out there for help and suggestions, because at the moment I'm at a loss.
 

TheIT

Infuriatingly Theoretical
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
6,432
Reaction score
1,343
Location
Silicon Valley
"Building collapses" sounds right to me. "Building" is acting as an adjective to indicate the type of collapses.
 

dpaterso

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels
Staff member
Super Moderator
Moderator
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
18,806
Reaction score
4,598
Location
Caledonia
Website
derekpaterson.net
Mmm, makes you look twice, doesn't it? :)

Tho' what you have is right, I think.

If you're really suffering, there's always "collapsing buildings"

-Derek
 

slcboston

Pasture-ized
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
50,318
Reaction score
29,062
Location
Second Star To The Right
see... "building collapses" sounds either like a newspaper headline or someone's attempt to build a collapse. Though how such a thing would be accomplished is beyond me...

but, as I cam over here to check responses, this occurred to me:

buildings collapsing

it doesn't quite fit the formula of the other three, but isn't screaming "this is wrong!" at me, either
 

TheIT

Infuriatingly Theoretical
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
6,432
Reaction score
1,343
Location
Silicon Valley
Interesting how people read the same words differently. Given the context, I automatically thought building = structure rather than building = to make something. Since the rest of the sentence deals with the types of catastrophes, "collapses" as a noun sounded right.
 

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
9,239
Reaction score
2,316
Location
Oregon, USA
The problem: For instance, gasoline explosions in mines, building collapse on construction sites, accidents while operating a machine; workplace fires and so on.

Other posters give good advice to make "collapses" parallel with explosions, accidents (it should be "while operating machines," not "a machine") and fires.

While you're at it, the semicolon doesn't work. For US publications, semicolons in regular use only separate main clauses. This would work:

For instance, gasoline explosions in mines, building collapses on construction sites, accidents while operating machines are areas of concern; workplace fires number more than all other catastrophes combined.

An exception for semicolon use is for items in a series containing internal commas. The series usually follows a colon:

Greatest loss of life: gas explosions in mines, caves, and tunnels; building collapses, in cities particularly; and workplace fires set by accident, arson, or lightning.
 

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
2,752
Reaction score
449
Location
Austria
1. Personally, I'd just abandon the parallelism and keep "collapse". It's a bit like "fractures, heart attacks, and food poisoning". I'd be more comfortable saying "There have been three instances of building collapse so far," than "There have been three building collapses so far." (It's maybe more obvious if you say "structural collapse" - which is out because of the word-root reptition with "construction sites".)

2. I thought of "buildings collapsing", but that actually clashes with "gasoline explosions" (rather than "gasoline exploding", which you can't really say, because the gasoline is involved in the explosion but doesn't really explode itself...). I'd still prefer the original.

3. I've not been able to come up with an improvement, but I'm not done thinking yet.

4. I don't think the semicolon works. It separates the "and so on" from the list it belongs to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.