IS IT A PARADOX? from manhattan SC 5th

[jay871750293]

Hi instructor~

In manhattan SC 5th, both chapter4 and chapter 11 discuss the topic of Parallelism, but there seems to be a paradox concerning the Parallelism of clause.

First side: in chapter4, P57,
author contends that "The subordinators do not have to be identical."
And the right example is that "There are many people WHO speak English BUT WHOSE parents do not."

Second side: in chapter11, P220,
author surprisingly claims that "Only clauses starting with the same word should be made parallel."
And the right example is that"A mastodon carcass, which has been thawed only once AND which is still fresh, is on display."

Is it really a paradox or just two different grammatical points I mix up?

Thanks~

[tim]

That second one is simply not true. I have no idea how it made it into the book.

[jay871750293]

That second one is simply not true. I have no idea how it made it into the book.

thanks for your reply, tim~

can I rectify my thought like the idea below?
"We just leave alone the second one and keep the point that The subordinators do not have to be identical in mind."
Right?

[RonPurewal]

That second one is simply not true. I have no idea how it made it into the book.

thanks for your reply, tim~

can I rectify my thought like the idea below?
"We just leave alone the second one and keep the point that The subordinators do not have to be identical in mind."
Right?

Right. As long as they serve the same grammatical function, they can be put in parallel.

[jay871750293]

That second one is simply not true. I have no idea how it made it into the book.

thanks for your reply, tim~

can I rectify my thought like the idea below?
"We just leave alone the second one and keep the point that The subordinators do not have to be identical in mind."
Right?

Right. As long as they serve the same grammatical function, they can be put in parallel.

I really appreciate your response, Ron~

[jlucero]

Glad it helped.