0

Which of the following is grammatically correct? Do they all mean the same?

  1. A lawyer breaking the law is also a crime.
  2. A lawyer's breaking the law is also a crime.
  3. A lawyer's law breaking is also a crime.
  4. Breaking the law by a lawyer is also a crime.

I've a little confusion regarding 1. I think the first one means "A lawyer is also a crime" which is weird. I might be wrong. Please correct me and clear my confusion regarding all these sentences.

Sahil Laskar
  • 497
  • 2
  • 9
  • 1
    Sahil please tell us whether you think each one is correct or why it might be incorrect. – Ronald Sole Sep 01 '22 at 14:42
  • "breaking the law" not "breaking law". – Stuart F Sep 01 '22 at 14:56
  • Please note that law in this context is a countable noun, so it has to be "breaking the law" or "breaking a law". – stangdon Sep 01 '22 at 14:56
  • 2
    What's your goal? Do you want to know how to handle possessed nouns as subjects, or do you want to know how to write this particular sentence correctly and naturally? – gotube Sep 01 '22 at 15:00
  • @StuartF I've edited my question. – Sahil Laskar Sep 01 '22 at 15:16
  • @gotube my question is does 1 and 2 mean the same ? Are other sentences same in meaning? – Sahil Laskar Sep 01 '22 at 15:17
  • @RonaldSole the first one means "A lawyer is also a crime" or "Act of breaking the law by a lawyer is also crime "? – Sahil Laskar Sep 01 '22 at 15:19
  • @SahilLaskar The second interpretation is correct. To be a lawyer is not a crime (although in some countries lawyers are treated as criminals for saying unpalatable things.) All 4 are now possible and mean the same thing. Law-breaking is either a single word or hyphenated, depending on the dictionary consulted. – Ronald Sole Sep 01 '22 at 16:15
  • Options #3 and #4 are pointlessly distracting and/or should be presented as a separate question and/or are basically just Off Topic writing advice – FumbleFingers Sep 01 '22 at 17:17
  • These sentences are all a bit awkward and unnatural. To say that "breaking the law is also a crime" is a bit of a tautology TBH. I wouldn't use any of these, Change the structure and wording. Perhaps "Lawyers can also be prosecuted for crimes" or "Lawyers are not exempt from the law". – Billy Kerr Sep 01 '22 at 21:01

2 Answers2

1

As you say, a lawyer is not a crime.

Thus, some prescriptive grammarians will say that sentence 1 is grammatically incorrect.

Unfortunately, English is not the mythical language envisaged by Leibniz that makes it impossible to express nonsense. If we turn to descriptive grammar, many native speakers might say sentence 1 when they mean sentence 2, and they would be understood correctly. People who speak or write carefully will avoid sentence 1 because it does not make literal sense, but English grammar itself has no rules that preclude nonsense.

Sentence 3 is grammatical and means the same thing as sentence 2, but is awkward.

Sentence 4 is grammatical and means the same thing as sentence 2. It is not awkward, but it is somewhat verbose.

Jeff Morrow
  • 32,084
  • 25
  • 58
  • Your If we turn to descriptive grammar, many native speakers might say sentence 1 when they mean sentence 2 doesn't make sense. Did you mean *prescriptive grammar? I'm quite capable of being a "careful speaker", but the idea that #1 is either "substandard" or somehow carries a different meaning to #2 doesn't strike a chord with me. It sounds like misguided pedantry on a par with Don't end a sentence with a preposition*. – FumbleFingers Sep 01 '22 at 17:22
  • No I mean exactly what I say. Many people would say "A lawyer breaking the law is a crime." The form is perfectly grammatical. "People swimming are subject to cramp" is a perfectly grammatical and logical sentence. But in the latter sentence the meaning is "people [who are] swimming." The sentence "A lawyer who is breaking the law is a crime" is grammatical and simultaneously nonsense. You may view avoiding nonsense as "useless pedantry." I do not, but I recognize that many people do speak nonsense. – Jeff Morrow Sep 01 '22 at 17:38
  • It is "nonsense" only by a perverse interpretation. Meaning lies in how language is used and understood by its users: nowhere else. – Colin Fine Sep 01 '22 at 22:58
  • The form “lawyer breaking the law is” hard to construe. Therefore it is sloppy use of language. I went out of my way to say that it was grammatical and common. If you and FF want to recommend that construction, that is your prerogative. It is not what I recommend. – Jeff Morrow Sep 02 '22 at 02:36
  • I think you're saying that A lawyer breaking the law can only be parsed as "short for" A lawyer who is* breaking the law. But I have no problem saying that it could just as well be short for the fact / act of a lawyer breaking the law [is a crime]*. Is that why our opinions differ on this one? – FumbleFingers Sep 02 '22 at 17:24
  • @FumbleFingers We disagree because you think I am specifying some rule of grammar or received English. I am not; I am talking about how to use English most effectively. Possibly I should add a link to an answer I gave to a different question where I went on at length on possessives and "gerunds." https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/321050/what-is-crying-in-she-saw-him-crying/321052#321052 Here, I believe it is the activity that is the primary focus, not the actor because, if you put the emphasis on the actor, the sentence literally does not make sense. – Jeff Morrow Sep 02 '22 at 19:02
  • People living in glass houses discourage / discourages* stone-throwing. I have no problem with either verb form there (but it could only* be singular if I discard initial *people*, since that just leaves the singular noun/gerund as the subject). – FumbleFingers Sep 03 '22 at 10:53
  • @FumbleFingers And there is our disagreement. I think it clearer, and therefore better, to distinguish “People’s living in glass houses discourages” and “People living in glass houses discourage.” I do not say this as a rule of grammar or as useless pedantry, but as a way of making meaning clearer. As I implied in the answer I referenced, the possessive makes clear that the activity is the focus of attention rather than the actor or actors. I do not believe that most readers or listeners will consciously distinguish, but I do believe it helps them understand intended meaning. – Jeff Morrow Sep 03 '22 at 12:05
  • @FumbleFingers In fact, my opinion is that many of the “rules” of prescriptive grammar are best considered strong recommendations for revising written prose. “This is nonsense which I will not put up with” is a verbose form of “I will not put up with this nonsense.” – Jeff Morrow Sep 03 '22 at 12:12
  • I don't have a problem with different people having different ideas about "the best" way to phrase things for clarity (or emphasis, or any other intended nuance). But who are these "prescriptive grammarians" who say "sentence 1 is grammatically incorrect"? All that comes to mind is Victorian (and earlier) English doesn't use gerunds anywhere near as much as current Anglophones, so they may have had preferences that have since been consigned to the dustbin of grammarian history! :) – FumbleFingers Sep 03 '22 at 12:16
  • I do not know. But I am not one of them. I think I made it perfectly clear that I was not expressing a rule of grammar. – Jeff Morrow Sep 03 '22 at 12:36
1

Many such awkward and confusing sentences can be remedied by re-writing. Re-writing a sentence that is creating some doubt in your mind (and may create doubt in the minds of readers) may improve the clarity of the sentence.

Try: It is also a crime for a lawyer to break the law.

= It is also a crime when a lawyer breaks the law.

Andy321
  • 111
  • 2