3

There is an item named Infinity Edge in computer game named League of Legends.

I thought the sentence was incorrect because I used the word 'named' twice.

ColleenV
  • 11,971
  • 13
  • 47
  • 85
newbie
  • 33
  • 2
  • 1
    The only correction I would make would be to include the in front of "computer game": There is an item named Infinity Edge in the* computer game named League of Legends.* – BradC Aug 25 '16 at 14:48
  • 2
    Welcome to ELL. Would you tell us why you think that is wrong? I am saying that since such questions often receive the stigma that it is a "proofreading" which are not welcomed here. – Cardinal Aug 25 '16 at 14:54
  • 1
    A simple change to the question makes it valid. "Does using a word twice in a sentence make it ungrammatical?" "Is anything wrong with my sentence?" is too broad. – TimR Aug 25 '16 at 15:17
  • @newbie - Is there a reason you think you can't use the word named twice in one sentence? They refer to different things, after all - the item is named X, and the game is named Y. – stangdon Aug 25 '16 at 15:21
  • If you think my sentence is too broad, how you would make it shorter? – newbie Aug 25 '16 at 15:26
  • 1
    @newbie No, not the sentence, the question "Is it correct?" is too broad. Those kinds of questions are generally not welcome on ELL because they are considered "off-topic". Visit this page for more information. But because you indicated a specific concern, it is probably ok. – Em. Aug 25 '16 at 15:37
  • Where does this idea come from? That using the same word in a sentence twice is somehow a bad thing? This isn't the first time I've seen this issue raised on ELL. – J.R. Aug 25 '16 at 17:17

1 Answers1

3

If we consider only grammar and intelligibility the sentence is fine, however you are right to be suspicious of this kind of duplication. I would certainly attempt to rewrite the sentence.

Here, the second named is not needed; the computer game League of Legends makes sense. The first named seems more useful because we are clearly talking about an item so special it must be given a name, the naming is significant. The naming of the computer game is less significant because all games have names.

djna
  • 7,588
  • 18
  • 18
  • 3
    Just to be clear, there's nothing wrong with duplication in and of itself. Duplication is often employed as an effective rhetoric device. In this case, however, using the word named a second time doesn't sound right, but not because we happen to be using the same word twice. – J.R. Aug 25 '16 at 17:19
  • 2
    @J.R. Well, I'd say that whenever you use a non-trivial word multiple times in a short space, it tends to sound odd. (By "non-trivial" I mean, excluding short, common words like "the" and "it".) It certainly isn't grammatically wrong, but it tends to sound weird. Imagine, "A man named Bob found an item named the Infinity Edge in a game named League of Legends that he bought at a store named Game Stop in a city named Chicago." In this case, the word "named" is easily eliminated by just dropping it and saying the name. But in many cases you have to cast about for a synonym. – Jay Aug 25 '16 at 18:40
  • 1
    @Jay - I guess the tricky part for the learner, then, is being able to figure out when a word is "trivial" or "non-trivial". In this case, I think my initial comment was because I was vaguely remembering this question where the O.P. was taking the avoid-word-repetition rule too far to the extreme. – J.R. Aug 25 '16 at 21:24
  • @J.R. Sure, the question you cite is definitely taking the rule -- if we can call it a "rule", perhaps "guideline" would be better -- to the extreme. This one is on the edges. – Jay Aug 26 '16 at 01:14