+0
The glasses no longer have crappy read and green lenses, instead having clear lenses.

The glasses have clear lenses, not red and green lenses, like the old crappy ones.

The glasses have clear lenses, and they don't have crappy red and green lenses as they used to.

The glasses have clear lenses, instead of the former crappy red and green lenses.

Are all grammatical?
Which is the best and why?

Finally, would you say the underlined phrase is an appositive of lenses, or simply the negated direct object?

Thanks a lot.
1 2
Comments  
Hi 1b3,
In sentence 1, you cannot say 'instead having' which is incorrect. You could have used a clause with 'but' like this: The glasses no longer have crappy red and green lenses, but rather clear ones. That works pretty well.

Sentence 2 is OK, although I would omit the comma after the second lenses and place a comma after old. I think the noun phrase not red and green lenses is an appositive to lenses because it is descriptive of the lenses, telling the reader what they are not. However, I am not the world's best grammarian, so you had better get someone else to answer that.

Sentence 3 is not right because you can't attach these two sentences with and. You could say: The glasses have clear lenses, not the crappy red and green ones they used to have.

Sentence 4 works ok, but I would take out the word lenses at the end and just say red and green ones. Now it is the best sentence-simple and clear-like the lenses.

Best regards,
TrysB
My last sentence should not have a strikethrough and I don't know why it did except that i put em dashes on either side of the words 'simple and clear' and maybe that is somehow interpreted as strikethrough by the html editor. Let me try it again:

This sentence is simple and clear, like the last one.

This sentence is-simple and clear-like the last one.

TrysB
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Hi, TrysB

I agree with what you say, except for the first example.

I read the same construction (instead having) in another sentence and also had doubts about whether it was grammatical or not, but I then came across another example of this constrution, making me think it is correct.

Have you an explanation/reason for your answer? Perhaps then I will be convinced Emotion: smile

Thanks for your time.
I'm not very good at grammatical explanations, but I'll try. First, sentence one uses two different verb forms, have and having. I think the two parts of the sentence should have parallel forms.

Second, to me, the construction instead having just sounds wrong. Normally it would be instead of having. But it still sounds very awkward in that sentence. Just because it is technically possible to use a particular sentence construction doesn't mean that you should use it. Grammar rules are not always like equations in engineering where you can calculate values to the fifth decimal place.

Just because you find several examples of a particular type of sentence, does not prove that it is correct. If you have to fight so hard to make the sentence work a certain way, then that should tell you that it is probably better to try a different construction.

I hope someone else will answer you so we can get another opinion.

I am glad that you take language seriously. That's a sign of a really good student.

All the best,
TrysB
English 1b3I read the same construction (instead having) in another sentence and also had doubts about whether it was grammatical or not, but I then came across another example of this constrution, making me think it is correct.
Hi English 1b3
TrysB has given you some good input. It is easy to say that you've seen the same construction elsewhere. However, without posting the specific sentences you say you've seen, you make it impossible for anyone to comment on them, or to explain why one sentence might work but your sentence doesn't. For all we know, the two sentences you are referring to could have had simple typographical errors.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Okay, I understand intellectually that it can be worth discussing the grammar of a sentence completely apart from its content. However, my personal reaction was that I was so put off by the word "crappy" that I really didn't care whether or not the grammar was correct -- or, more to the point, I was somewhat surprised that anyone who used the word "crappy" cared about appositives and negated direct objects and making sure the sentence was grammatically correct. It seems like a contradiction in style to me. Did anyone else have this reaction, or I am just being oversensitive?
khoffIt seems like a contradiction in style to me.
Yes, I got that feeling too.
I didn't write the sentence, so I didn't get to choose whether 'crappy' was in the sentence or not sorry.

All I know is that a participle phrase often ends a sentence, following a verb phrase.

Above is an example:

A participle phrase often ends a sentence, following a verb phase.

It could be parallel as mentioned above as an idea for the sentence in discussion:

A participle phrase often ends a sentence and follows a verb phase.

However, the participle phrase just gives the writer a different option so that he or she doesn't have compound predicate after compound predicate. There are other reasons why the participle phrase is used.

Adverbials, such as insteadin the sentence we are discussing, often head participle phrases. This is why I'm confused as to why you guys think it is incorrect: this is just an adverbial heading a participle phrase that could also be a second verb phrase. Does anyone apart from me see my point Emotion: smile

Cheers
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more