1

This food looked horrible, (and) even grotesque.

In this sentence, do I have to put the word and before phrase even grotesque? And if I don't have to put the word and, what is the rule that allows me to delete the word and?

sooeithdk
  • 513
  • 6
    There are several varieties of and-deletion rules. One deletes all but the last and in series (me, Bill, Harry, and Max), and another deletes the and between two conjoined sentences, especially when other words have been deleted by Conjunction Reduction. The second type is what this is -- it comes from The food looked horrible, (and) (the food) even (looked) grotesque, and all the parenthesized words are deleted; deleting the and is kind of an afterthought. It's not needed because there arenlt two clauses anymore, just two phrases. – John Lawler Jul 27 '15 at 22:18
  • What is this second type called? – sooeithdk Jul 27 '15 at 22:25
  • 1
    It's part of conjunction reduction; that deletes to the right. The first kind deletes to the left -- i.e, everything but the last is deleted. – John Lawler Jul 28 '15 at 02:32
  • Can you give me some examples? I am so confused right now. – sooeithdk Jul 28 '15 at 02:38
  • 1
    There was an example in the comment: me, Bill, Harry, and Max comes from me and Bill and Harry and Max, and the first two and's have been deleted. Note that they come before the one that is kept. This is the opposite of deleting thee second the food looks. – John Lawler Jul 28 '15 at 02:41
  • I am very familiar with me, Bill, Harry, and Max type of phrases. And I know very well that there have to be more than 2 elements in the sentence for every ands except for the last to be deleted. But in my sentence, there are only 2 elements which I thought disabled me to delete word "and" from. If it is the opposite way of bill, harry, and max phrase, doesn't it have to follow the same rule? – sooeithdk Jul 28 '15 at 02:48
  • 1
    And would no longer connect two clauses. There was so much deleted from the second clause that it wasn't a clause any more, just a modifier. Adding and would be like adding it to She's coming home, late to make __She's coming home, and late_. You could, if you wanted to stress the second part; but it's not necessary. Like so many things in English, it's up the speaker. – John Lawler Jul 28 '15 at 02:53
  • So it became something like this: This food looked so horrible, (which was) even grotesque. Great amount of deletion just made it a phrase that modifies the first clause "this food looked so horrible." Right? But now there is one more problem: I have seen this sentence in a book. The sentence goes, " Within a couple of days I could stand, even make two, three steps, despite the nausea and general weakness." In this sentence, word "and" that should have come before word "even" is deleted again. And this time it does not seem like this phrase "even ... steps" can be a modifier. – sooeithdk Jul 28 '15 at 03:01
  • So why is and deleted again? – sooeithdk Jul 28 '15 at 03:04
  • And should link two of the same thing. There used to be two clauses connected by and. After all the deletions, you just have a noun phrase after a clause. So you can (but don't have to) delete the and. – John Lawler Jul 28 '15 at 13:41
  • So whenever there is just a noun phrase or whichever type of phrase, I am able to delete the and. Does it go same with the other coordinating conjunctions? Or is it possible only with and? – sooeithdk Jul 28 '15 at 17:00
  • Horrible and grotesque are coordinating adjectives because they both describe food. You can remove the conjunction between coordinating adjectives that are joined by and or but. – SomethingDark Aug 27 '15 at 03:17
  • @JohnLawler Your answer is correct, and you know it. So, answer the question! You get credit, and so the question can be closed, with a correct answer registered for posterity :) – Born2Smile Aug 29 '15 at 06:48
  • @Born2Smile: The idea that there is a rule that covers the deletion of a single word in English and nothing else is so silly that there can be no useful answer and does not deserve one. As I've pointed out. As far as posterity is concerned, I hope they learn not to ask silly questions so much, but experience suggests that isn't gonna happen. – John Lawler Aug 29 '15 at 14:59
  • I kind of wonder how the prize is going to go; does the OP have the points to give away? – John Lawler Aug 30 '15 at 16:05

5 Answers5

6

An artful way to delete it is to rephrase using the adjective suffix ly.

This food looked horribly grotesque.

The literal meaning is slightly different but the spirit is the same.

Semicolons aren't all that common but they can join two independent clauses and show that they are strongly related.

This food looked horrible; in fact, it even looked grotesque. QaDT

If you want to see some masterful use of semicolons read some of Martin Luther Kings speeches.

Some prefer to avoid semicolons. In this case a simple comma can rid you of the and.

This food looked horrible, even grotesque.

When spoken it leads you to pause briefly.

candied_orange
  • 10,006
  • 1
    I'd use the comma. "Even grotesque" is not an independent clause so the semicolon is inappropriate. In the first option, "horribly" seems more like "extremely" than "in a way that is horrible". – mgold Aug 27 '15 at 21:05
  • @mgold hows this? – candied_orange Aug 28 '15 at 02:30
  • As with so much of English, it's what sounds right. Compare, "he's a horribly impatient person." – mgold Aug 28 '15 at 13:23
3

A comma can separate two adjectives when the adjectives are interchangeable.

Grammar rules for lists allow the article separator, and, to be replaced with a comma. The comma "stands in" for the word and, replacing it.

chillin
  • 757
2

This is half way between a comment and an answer, but I'll state it here. You could use grotesque even as an adjunct. More specifically as a supplement. This is a bit like putting the same phrase in brackets:

This food looked horrible, grotesque even.

Araucaria - Him
  • 47,146
2

In your example, 'even' is an adverb used as an intensifier (aka intensive) and meaning 'indeed'. The "and" is a red herring.

even

....

adv.

  1. .... b. Indeed; moreover. Used as an intensive: He was happy, even ecstatic.

(from The Free Dictionary)

Note the close parallel between your example and the example in the dictionary.

The "and" in your example is superfluous. In the interest of expressive economy, leave it out.

No prescriptive rule covers the case, because 'even' is (already) the connector; however (indeed, moreover), you might well ask what prescriptive rule allows the insertion of 'and' before a connective adverbial intensifier.

As for a descriptive "rule" covering the case, the topic would be more appropriate on a linguistics forum. This is beyond my expertise, but my understanding is that the descriptive "rule" ('rule' is used in a figurative technical sense here) would describe how a hypothesized prototypical or idealized linguistic deletion results in the use of connective adverbs without an 'and' component in a specified linguistic environment.

JEL
  • 32,781
1

I would just add to what @CandiedOrange said that the main use of semicolons is to join two independent clauses, not clauses and phrases. Replace the semicolon with a comma and it's perfect -- two descriptive words in apposition to each other (horrible/grotesque), joined by a comma.

ewormuth
  • 1,232