+0

Q1. Are all of the below sentences grammatical?

Q2. Which of these is your preference?

  1. I have some sad news to share: David will be leaving us at the end of the month.
  2. I have some sad news to share, David will be leaving us at the end of the month.
  3. I have some sad news to share, which is (that) David will be leaving us at the end of the month.
  4. I have some sad news to share. David will be leaving us at the end of the month.
  5. I have some sad news to share--David will be leaving us at the end of the month.
+0

#4

+0

Sorry, I forgot to answer your Q1,

  1. I have some sad news to share: David will be leaving us at the end of the month. This is not wrong, but a colon seems to me a bit 'fussy' and unnecessary.
  2. I have some sad news to share, David will be leaving us at the end of the month. You cannot join two sentences just with a comma. This is called 'a run-on sentence' error.
  3. I have some sad news to share, which is (that) David will be leaving us at the end of the month. Correct. I just find #4 simpler.
  4. I have some sad news to share. David will be leaving us at the end of the month. To me, this is simplest and best. Do you find it hard to understand? Surely not!
  5. I have some sad news to share--David will be leaving us at the end of the month. Some people love dashes, and some people dislike them. Too many can start to irritate some readers.

To me, when a comma is used, the words following it are a relative clause. No, see #2 above.

n the other hand, when a full stop is used, they are two main clauses and thus two independent thoughts and less connected. I think you are going to get into deep water if you start thinking of each main clause as an independent thought.

Clive

Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Comments  

May I ask why that's your preference? Are the others not grammatical?


To me, when a comma is used, the words following it are a relative clause. On the other hand, when a full stop is used, they are two main clauses and thus two independent thoughts and less connected.

 Clive's reply was promoted to an answer.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.

Thanks. Can #2 not be considered a relative clause with 'which is'omitted?


Here is another example:

Andrew, (who was) afraid and upset, went to bed without saying goodnight.

Eddie88Thanks. Can #2 not be considered a relative clause with 'which is' omitted?

No

Eddie88Andrew, (who was) afraid and upset, went to bed without saying goodnight.

No: "afraid and upset" do refer to "Andrew", but they are a coordination of adjectives, not some kind of relative clause. A relative clause requires a relativised element, either actually present or understood:

Andrew, who was afraid and upset, went to bed without saying goodnight. [relative clause]

Andrew, afraid and upset, went to bed without saying goodnight. [adjective coordination]

This pair have the same meaning, but the syntax is different.