Is this sentence grammatically correct?

The above post explains my point a bit more, except I'm posting on a phone and can't be arsed with a million clicks to get brackets done neatly.

To amend my earlier post... The same would apply to any list, really, not just one describing a person. It is simply not necessary to repeat the subject of the sentence. For example, if you were describing a car, you might say: The car is a Ford, and is 5 years old. I very much doubt you would say: The car is a Ford, and the car is 5 years old. However, that is what is being suggested with repeated use of "I" in the sentence in the OP.
 
The original sentence is perfectly acceptable, and grammatically correct. Vonhelmet has explained it perfectly, as befits his Sig. :D

The question is, will you show your other half these comments? :p
 
It's acceptable to use "am" in the sentence like that although I would personally either add an "I" before it or remove the "am" altogether as it reads more fluidly. Grammatically correct sentences aren't always easy or 'natural' to read so sometimes a bit of thought will produce a clearer way of presenting things for readers.
 
Vonhelmet said:
The above post explains my point a bit more, except I'm posting on a phone and can't be arsed with a million clicks to get brackets done neatly.

To amend my earlier post... The same would apply to any list, really, not just one describing a person. It is simply not necessary to repeat the subject of the sentence. For example, if you were describing a car, you might say: The car is a Ford, and is 5 years old. I very much doubt you would say: The car is a Ford, and the car is 5 years old. However, that is what is being suggested with repeated use of "I" in the sentence in the OP.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't write 'The car is a Ford, and is 5 years old' formally though, in conversational English that would be fine. However formally you would write 'The car is a Ford, and it is 5 years old'

Equally with dropping the 'I' in 'I am', the basic formal structure would require the 'I' before the 'am' or 'I'm' and dropping the 'am', to remove the 'I' and leave the 'am' implies emphasis and I do not think that is within the structure of this particular sentence.

The sentence would be better formulated thus

I can confirm I am a member in good standing with my National Association and also a member of <team name>.

The English language is simply far too complex in my opinion, it is no surprise that no one can get it right all the time.
 
Haha, the issue of using "it is" or "it's" for the car crossed my mind while I was in the shower. I wondered whether I'd be back in time to amend my post to include that - clearly not. I agree with what you're saying, though personally I would omit the subject/article the second time in formal, written English. Maybe it's just preference, or maybe I'm wrong on account of never having been properly taught grammar at school, while you may have been.

I think my point, based on my understanding of things, is that it is not necessary to include the subject a second time, but neither is it incorrect to include it. So, if economy or concision are a priority, then you can skip it. However, it seems clear from this thread that people prefer that the second subject be included, so for general readability it may be preferable to leave it in. As ever, an important rule is to write in a manner that will be understood by the reader.

So, neither is wrong, but one or other may be preferable depending on how you like to write and who you expect to be reading whatever it is that you're writing.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
You wouldn't write 'The car is a Ford, and is 5 years old' formally though, in conversational English that would be fine. However formally you would write 'The car is a Ford, and it is 5 years old'.
Click to expand...

But both would be correct?

Castiel said:
Equally with dropping the 'I' in 'I am', the basic formal structure would require the 'I' before the 'am' or 'I'm' and dropping the 'am', to remove the 'I' and leave the 'am' implies emphasis and I do not think that is within the structure of this particular sentence.
Click to expand...

Why not? Genuine question, as the membership might be one of significant importance.

Castiel said:
The sentence would be better formulated thus

I can confirm I am a member in good standing with my National Association and also a member of <team name>.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but I still think the original sentence is correct, and perfectly acceptable.
 
@Vonhelmet

Indeed. Much depends on the context and structure of the sentence. In this example I am of the opinion (and I could be wrong) that 'am' implies emphasis on the <team name> which is not required here, also while you have a valid point with regard to economy, formally, while grammatically correct, it isn't conventional to omit the second subject and so added to the unintentional emphasis I would lean toward omitting the 'am' in favour of I'm to negate the emphasis and remain within convention.
 
Last edited:
Buchanan0204 said:
It was on a formal letter. I wasn't writing it. Only filling in the form. I seen it and mentionined... she cracked up, disagreed. I came on here looking for backup... got it, she goes in huff... eats humble pie! Theee end!

That's pretty much how it panned out.
Click to expand...

...aaand so starts the bedroom gymnastics ban!
 
kylew said:
"I am"

Ask her if she thinks it's okay to always miss out the "I" and just write things like "Am going the shop".
Click to expand...

Depends how far north you live I guess ;)

Saying that I have the misfortune of living near Cannock and as such phrases such as 'am ya alright' are all too common.

Buchanan0204 said:
The reason she believed it as it was in an official letter from a sports governing body.
Click to expand...

Ah, no wonder, illiteracy is rife in the sports world ;)
 
Haha... this has been one hell of a thread too read through now.

P.S. Everyone delete your posts... incase she sees the ones backing her up... that would be verryyyyy bad!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom