# What is this called grammatically? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 6, 2014, 8:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645 "2014-02-06T08:18:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/41 "2014-02-07T10:19:33Z")
**UDS** got it in one. ---
**Author:** ![LynnM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@LynnM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LynnM)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/42 "2014-02-07T13:31:39Z")
I’m having trouble understanding why this is not ellipsis–from original post: **If I say - ‘This is not a public company, it is private.’** Instead of saying full - ‘This is not a public company, it is a private company.’ From > **[Ellipsis (linguistics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse_%28figure_of_speech%29)** > > In linguistics, ellipsis (from Greek: ἔλλειψις, élleipsis 'omission') or an elliptical construction is the omission from a clause of one or more words that are nevertheless understood in the context of the remaining elements. There are numerous distinct types of ellipsis acknowledged in theoretical syntax. Theoretical accounts of ellipsis seek to explain its syntactic and semantic factors, the means by which the elided elements are recovered, and the status of the elided elements. Theoretical acc... **Nominal ellipsis** Noun ellipsis (also N-ellipsis, N’-ellipsis, NP-ellipsis, NPE, ellipsis in the DP) occurs when the noun and potentially accompanying modifiers are omitted from a noun phrase.[1] Nominal ellipsis occurs with a limited set of determinatives in English (cardinal and ordinal numbers and possessive determiners), whereas it is much freer in other languages. The following examples illustrate nominal ellipsis with cardinal and ordinal numbers: Fred did three onerous tasks because Susan had done two [onerous tasks]. -nominal ellipsis The first train and the second [train] have arrived. -nominal ellipsis And the following two sentences illustrate nominal ellipsis with possessive determiners: I heard Mary’s dog, and you heard Bill’s [dog]. -N-ellipsis If Doris tries my chili, I will try hers [chili]. -N-ellipsis ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/43 "2014-02-07T14:49:20Z")
> [@LynnM](#): > > I’m having trouble understanding why this is not ellipsis–from original post: > > **If I say - ‘This is not a public company, it is private.’** > Instead of saying full - ‘This is not a public company, it is a private company.’ Because one is not a shortened version of the other. They are two completely different sentences with different structures, although they do happen to have a lot of the same words. To clarify this position, I need to draw out the logic of the “this is ellipsis” position. If you’ll pardon the back-and-forth, then as a first step: **LynnM** , would you say that there is ellipsis in the following sentence: “The ball is red.”? If so, what is omitted? ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/44 "2014-02-07T16:13:05Z")
> [@LynnM](#): > > I’m having trouble understanding why this is not ellipsis–from original post: > > **If I say - ‘This is not a public company, it is private.’** > Instead of saying full - ‘This is not a public company, it is a private company.’ > > From > [Ellipsis (linguistics) - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipse_%28figure_of_speech%29) > > **Nominal ellipsis** > Noun ellipsis (also N-ellipsis, N’-ellipsis, NP-ellipsis, NPE, ellipsis in the DP) occurs when the noun and potentially accompanying modifiers are omitted from a noun phrase.[1] Nominal ellipsis occurs with a limited set of determinatives in English (cardinal and ordinal numbers and possessive determiners), whereas it is much freer in other languages. The following examples illustrate nominal ellipsis with cardinal and ordinal numbers: > > Fred did three onerous tasks because Susan had done two [onerous tasks]. > -nominal ellipsis > > The first train and the second [train] have arrived. > -nominal ellipsis > > And the following two sentences illustrate nominal ellipsis with possessive determiners: > > I heard Mary’s dog, and you heard Bill’s [dog]. > -N-ellipsis > > If Doris tries my chili, I will try hers [chili]. > -N-ellipsis In “it is private,” the nominal pronoun “it” replaces the noun and works as a noun. It is a complete noun phrase with no ellipsis. It could be written as a sentence in its own, though it would sound clunky. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/45 "2014-02-07T17:09:46Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > “Your eyes are blue” is not an ellipsis of “your eyes are blue eyes”. > > “John is dead” is not an ellipsis of “John is a dead man”. > > “ABC Inc is private” is not an ellipsis of “ABC Inc. is a private company”. > [@Pasta](#): > > To clarify this position, I need to draw out the logic of the “this is ellipsis” position. If you’ll pardon the back-and-forth, then as a first step: **LynnM** , would you say that there is ellipsis in the following sentence: “The ball is red.”? If so, what is omitted? You’re both missing something crucial. Go to the Wikipedia page and look at all the examples. Every single one of them has a dual, parallel structure. Omitting part of the second half of the structure because it has already been said and therefore implied for future use in the fist half of the structure is ellipsis. What you two are doing are creating a single structure without a parallel to it. As I and others have said, this is a completely different construct. You need the two-part structure. SciFiSam, I can’t understand your point at all. Almost all ellipsized phrases can be written as sentences on their own. So what? And if one can’t, so what again? ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/46 "2014-02-07T18:14:24Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You’re both missing something crucial. Go to the Wikipedia page and look at all the examples. Every single one of them has a dual, parallel structure. Omitting part of the second half of the structure because it has already been said and therefore implied for future use in the fist half of the structure is ellipsis. > > What you two are doing are creating a single structure without a parallel to it. As I and others have said, this is a completely different construct. You need the two-part structure. > > SciFiSam, I can’t understand your point at all. Almost all ellipsized phrases can be written as sentences on their own. So what? And if one can’t, so what again? You’re missing something crucial, which is that in English, N-ellipsis is restricted to a limited set of words: > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Nominal ellipsis occurs with a limited set of determinatives in English (cardinal and ordinal numbers and possessive determiners) “Private” is not a number or possessive determiner. Clearly, the OP’s sentence is not an example of N-ellipsis, according to the Wikipedia definition. There is no ellipsis, just the pronoun “it”, which refers to “this company”: “This is not a public company; it is private” == “This is not a public company; this company is private.” Even if it was ellipsis, that doesn’t quite answer the OP’s question, which was (somewhat implicitly), “is there a word for what’s WRONG with this sentence?” There’s nothing grammatically or semantically incorrect with the sentence, other than the comma should be a semicolon (possibly). Stylistically, I’d omit the second clause for unnecessary redundancy. If there’s any ellipsis, it’s in the first clause: “This [company] is not a public company.” I don’t think that’s ellipsis, though, it’s just a fairly common pronoun substitution (this = this company). ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/47 "2014-02-07T19:07:44Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > SciFiSam, I can’t understand your point at all. Almost all ellipsized phrases can be written as sentences on their own. So what? And if one can’t, so what again? No. They can’t be written as complete grammatical phrases without the preceding phrase. Look at your own examples. ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/48 "2014-02-07T19:42:02Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > You’re both missing something crucial. Go to the Wikipedia page and look at all the examples. Every single one of them has a dual, parallel structure. Omitting part of the second half of the structure because it has already been said and therefore implied for future use in the fist half of the structure is ellipsis. I agree that the N-ellipsis examples all have a parallel structure. You cannot leave something out without first establishing what it is. But they also _require_ the parallel structure for the second clause to make any sense. This is not true of the OP’s example. If the OP’s example was “What can I tell you about this company? It is private.” then the potential parallel construction is not so obvious, and (I think) you would not call this ellipsis. The fact that the first sentence in the OP has similar content to the latter sentence does not, in the view of the non-ellipsis-ers, magically change the latter sentence(_) into one with ellipsis. To my ear, the subject-verb-nominative parallel construction you want to impose does not materialize at all, exactly because the passage isn’t written explicitly parallel. Rather, it is a two-sentence construction providing emphasis via an adjective/contra-adjective arrangement. Philosophically (if not definitionally), both adjectives modify the single instance of the word “company”, one directly and one indirectly via the channel provided by the pronoun “it”. (_) which is complete on its own both in grammar and in content. The lack of the word “company” in the subject is just standard pronoun behavior. ---
**Author:** ![blueslipper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b5a626/32.png) [@blueslipper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blueslipper)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/49 "2014-02-07T20:22:09Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > Even if it was ellipsis, that doesn’t quite answer the OP’s question, which was (somewhat implicitly), “is there a word for what’s WRONG with this sentence?”. I was not implying that there was anything wrong with the sentence.I just want to know what that is called grammatically. ‘Blue Sky Steel is not a public company. Blue Sky Steel is private.’ ‘Blue Sky Steel is not a public company. Blue Sky Steel is a private company.’ What I am asking is what is it called grammatically. As far as I am aware there are languages which cannot make this construction - ‘Blue Sky Steel is not a public company. Blue Sky Steel is private.’ I am sorry for any confusion. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/50 "2014-02-07T20:28:16Z")
I’d call it a run-on sentence or a comma splice. “This is not a public company, it is private” sounds to me like two separate sentences that should be written as two separate sentences (or perhaps spliced with a semi-colon); connecting them with a comma like that isn’t right. (See what I did there?) ETA: Upon more careful perusal of this thread, I see others have mentioned comma splice too. ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Dumpster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Desert\_Dumpster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Dumpster)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/51 "2014-02-07T20:38:01Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > I’m pretty sure he means that the sentence should be punctuated thus: > > “This is a private, not a public, company.” But in this example, you don’t need the second comma… ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/52 "2014-02-07T20:41:29Z")
> [@Quercus](#): > > I suspect the OP just chose a poor example, as “it is private” makes sense by itself. Perhaps they were thinking of something like > “This company is not in fact larger than General Electric. It is smaller.” > > Now, the second sentence all by itself has strictly valid syntax (Noun + identity verb + adjective) but all by itself it is also meaningless, because ‘smaller’ all by itself is meaningless (smaller than what?). It is understood to mean “It is smaller (than General Electric)”. This tangential example seems to be trying to get at the problem of the _incomplete comparison_ – a clearer example would be: “I like chocolate more than Mary.” Does that mean I like chocolate more than I like Mary? Or does it mean I like chocolate more than Mary likes chocolate? This is one kind of ambiguous construct that we were explicitly warned about in one of my English classes. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2014, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/53 "2014-02-07T21:11:05Z")
> [@Desert\_Dumpster](#): > > But in this example, you don’t need the second comma… Why wouldn’t you use a comma there? Without the second comma, the word _private_ appears to be a noun, not an adjective. ---
**Author:** ![LynnM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/b2d939/32.png) [@LynnM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LynnM)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/54 "2014-02-14T19:20:43Z")
> [@blueslipper](#): > > If I say - ‘This is not a public company, it is private.’ > Instead of saying full - ‘This is not a public company, it is a private company.’ To further confuse things: In [TheFreeDictionary.com](http://TheFreeDictionary.com), their definition of the word **absolute** includes this grammar-specific sense–see 6.c [bold added]: 1. Grammar a. Of, relating to, or being a word, phrase, or construction that is isolated syntactically from the rest of a sentence, as _the referee having finally arrived_ in _The referee having finally arrived, the game began_. b. Of, relating to, or being a transitive verb when its object is implied but not stated. For example, \*inspires \*in _We have a teacher who inspires_ is an absolute verb. c. Of, relating to, or being an \*\*adjective \*\*or pronoun **that stands alone when the noun it modifies is being implied but not stated**. For example, in _Theirs were the best_, \*theirs \*is an absolute pronoun and \*best \*is an **absolute adjective**. So, in the similar sentence: This is not a public company, it is private. …since “company” is implied, is “private” an absolute adjective? > **[absolute](https://www.thefreedictionary.com/absolute)** > > Definition, Synonyms, Translations of absolute by The Free Dictionary ---
**Author:** ![Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/96bed5/32.png) [@Patty\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patty_O_Furniture)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2014, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/55 "2014-02-15T03:16:49Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > **UDS** got it in one. In one what? ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2014, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/56 "2014-02-16T23:56:21Z")
> [@Desert\_Dumpster](#): > > But in this example, you don’t need the second comma… Indeed you do. In the sentence quoted, the principal clause is “This is a private company”. The words “not a public” are a parenthetic interpolation, and need to be marked as such. This is conventionally done with opening and closing commas. ---
**Author:** ![MsKaren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a183cd/32.png) [@MsKaren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsKaren)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/57 "2014-08-12T03:30:28Z")
In a totally different direction, perhaps the OP just meant ‘What is it called when you use the adjective or another word as a stand in for the noun?’ and maybe the OP cared nothing about the sentence structure. In that case it would be a metonymy. It isn’t what I think of a metonymy really (like ‘give us our daily bread’) but I can see it. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/58 "2014-08-12T04:11:44Z")
> [@MsKaren](#): > > In a totally different direction, perhaps the OP just meant ‘What is it called when you use the adjective or another word as a stand in for the noun?’ and maybe the OP cared nothing about the sentence structure. In that case it would be a metonymy. > > It isn’t what I think of a metonymy really (like ‘give us our daily bread’) but I can see it. Nope. Remember, the sentence the OP asks about is this: _“This is not a public company, it is private.”_ Metonymy involves substituting, for a word or phrase, a different word or phrase denoting a property of the thing referred to. So, for example, if a war memorial is inscribed with the dedication “to the fallen”, that’s metonymy. The people who are being memorialised are not directly mentioned. Instead the characteristic of being fallen is mentioned, and we know that the memorial is dedicated to fallen soldiers, or fallen heroes, or whatever. But in the second limb of the OP, the word which refers to the company is the pronoun “it”. “It” is not a characteristic of the company; it’s just a pronoun which refers to the company. ---
**Author:** ![jharvey963](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/54ee81/32.png) [@jharvey963](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jharvey963)\ **Post date:** [August 12, 2014, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645/59 "2014-08-12T16:40:11Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > I think the word you are seeking is **incorrect**. You should replace the comma with a semi-colon. > > 🙂 Or a period, though I agree a semi-colon is a better choice. J. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-this-called-grammatically/680645.md?page=2)