+0
This is a quote from the movie Green Mile:

"My name is John Coffee, like the drink, only not spelled the same."

Is this grammatical in writing, or would such an utterance be confined to casual, spoken English? If confined, what constituents or particular constructions in this sentence make it so?

Ta.
Comments  
Greetings,

, ...like the drink,... features situational ellipsis of initial type. This is usual in discourse, which restricts the utterance to purely vernacular English.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff
Thanks.

What exactly is missing before 'like'? I thought the missing words were following 'only'???

Since the clauses are reduced to phrases through the omission of implied words, should I punctuate them as phrases or as clauses?

Why is the omission of these words creating sentences restricted to vernacular English while many sentences that have ellipted words remain standard in formal prose?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
English 1b3What exactly is missing before 'like'? I thought the missing words were following 'only'???
It is clear that pronunciation and spelling of the surname do not follow the same pattern, his words could be: ..., (which is pronounced) like the drink, ... Besides, your interpretation of the words in the movie is not precise. If you find them, you'll get a fuller understanding.
English 1b3Why is the omission of these words creating sentences restricted to vernacular English while many sentences that have ellipted words remain standard in formal prose?
As you know, ellipsis can be defined in terms of gradience. Accordingly, there exist corresponding criteria for distinguishing between various forms of ellipsis. Strict ellipsis, for instance, is surely grammatical, but situational one need not be. In order to discuss it in detail, you need to address the discourse circumstances of conversation and discourse analysis, every case should be viewed separately.

Respectfully, Gleb Chebrikoff
"My name is John Coffee, like the drink, only (it is) not spelled the same."

Ta. So the omission of the bold words above would be seen as strict ellipsis, which is surely grammatical, correct?

I just assume the subject and verb to be can always be removed if the subject is repeated elsewhere in the sentence. Such an ellipsis I'd see as correct in all writing--correct me if I'm wrong, of course.
English 1b3Ta. So the omission of the bold words above would be seen as strict ellipsis, which is surely grammatical, correct?
- one of the criteria for strict ellipsis is that the missing expression is precisely recoverable. This does not agree with the above.
English 1b3the subject and verb to be can always be removed if the subject is repeated elsewhere in the sentence.
- examples are welcome for us to be more precise.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Gleb_Chebrikoffone of the criteria for strict ellipsis is that the missing expression is precisely recoverable. This does not agree with the above.

I don't understand. What do you mean by precisely recoverable? "only it is..." Why is this not recoverable?