I don't get it. Help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blazedm

I dont get it. Help?

---

Hi Blaze,

I would say your problems is using 'then that' to join two independent clauses. If you use some type of punctuation to separate the two then it goes some way to solving the ambiguity.

If a man shoots a man, then that man man shoots another man...

Following on from what I have just explained, you still need to be careful not to confuse independent clauses. The best way would be to express it in the following way.


If a man shoots a man, then he shoots...



Tut

Who dies? Answer: we all die.

Nothing is certain in life except death and taxes.

I think, the man who was killed is the only deceased person in this confusing sentence.

Seems like the man KILLS someone and then SHOOTS another. We can confirm the first man is dead and can only confirm the second man was shot, not killed.

Must be a crime of passion:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blazedm

I dont get it. Help?

---

Hi again Blaze,


Upon a second reading of you post I think I get what you are asking.

As the sentence stands it can be taken to read :

A shoots and kills B, B shoots C. I think you are asking, who did the shooting? It doesn't seem to make sense to suggest after B is shot he shoots C. Especially if we know he was killed.

As stated before I think the problem is trying to use 'then' as a conjunction to join two independent clauses. We can use 'then' as a conjunction but it is not a coordinating conjunction. Coordinating conjunctions are needed to join independent clauses.

What conclusions can we draw? One man (B) is dead. Another man (C) is possibly dead. The only certain knowledge we have is that one man was shot and killed by A

Tut