[Jan D. Hodge]

"After the death of the father and the sons had each gotten a ring, . . ."

Is this grammatically correct? It has been cited as a case of faulty parallelism and so a grammatical error.

Though not grammatically parallel, both "the death of the father" [noun phrase] and "the sons had each gotten a ring" [clause] follow "after." But in the first instance "after" is technically a preposition, and in the second instance it is a subordinating conjection. Is this grammatically acceptable, an example of zeugma? Or is it a fault to be corrected?

Cf. e.g.: "After midnight and the moon had set, we could still hear the distant howling of wolves."

Thanks,
Jan

[Maryann Corbett]

Parallel structure is a very big deal in my day job. For decades I found it an easy concept to teach to new drafters; they were breathing it already. These days, I see many more non-parallels like the one in Jan's example. I try to get people to avoid them. They absolutely grate on my nerves.

Whether or not the bad parallel is an error of grammar, it's awkward and distracting. I'd call it a stylistic fault, rather than a grammatical error--and unfortunately, that means we can't fix it in statutory editing.

[Charlie Southerland]

Didn't Faulkner do some of that in his stories? I think I remember a couple.

Isn't it used more as a device than a true distraction?

[ross hamilton hill]

Defintiely not a grammatical error. Depends how it's used, stylistically it's very Victorian.

[Max Goodman]

I agree with Maryann. It's definitely a distraction, requiring the reader to focus on the words rather than the content. Whether that makes it an error depends on the author's intention, but, in the case of the example given, it's hard to imagine a context in which that would be preferable to a version that would require less work from the reader.

[Jan D. Hodge]

Good points all, and my thanks to each of you for responding. The problematic sentence was a paraphrase from a double-dactyl stanza I've been working on, and I've reworked it to this:

After the sire had passed
on, and the sons had each
gotten a ring, there were
none who could say
which had the singular,
incontrovertible
legacy. Maybe it's
better that way.

(The poem is based on a 14th century tale, and as in the source I use "sire" rather than "father" throughout to identify that character.)

Thanks,
Jan

[Charlie Southerland]

Hi Jan, If I were you, I'd stretch those first three lines out differently, because it's the line breaks which makes the awkwardness, not the language you are using. I see seven beats per line there if you'd consider it, and taylor the lines that way throughout. and take —"Maybe it's better that way" as four beats. So 2 lines of seven beats and one of 4 would do it, I think.

[Martin Rocek]

But that is very different from what you posted--there is no temporary ambiguity that causes the reader to stumble.
When you write
"After the death of the father and the sons had each gotten a ring, . . ."
at least for a moment the reader thinks that the father and the sons have all died.
If you write
"After the father died and the sons had each gotten a ring, . . ."
it may not be very pleasing to the ear, but the meaning is clear.

[Max Goodman]

I agree with Martin.

(The awkwardnesses I see in those initial lines are "sire," which has a dipthong to my ear, and "passed on" being divided over two lines. (Presumably earlier stanzas will have established the poem's rhythm, which will go a long way toward at least preventing these awkwardnesses from making the reader stumble.))

[Charlie Southerland]

Yes, but an em dash after father takes the issue off the table and keeps the sense proper and in heptameter, which would be cool.