Jaishree Ram Mohan

I came across this sentence recently:

'They had to deal with Madan, a revolutionary and a rake.'

To me it sounded like they had to deal with three people, but it turns out that Madan is a revolutionary and rake. Am I being fussy/obtuse or is this wrong? Can one say:  'She is an author, a painter, a singer and a mother'? Or should it be 'She is an author, painter, singer and mother'?

Sophie Johnson

Your observation "To me it sounded like they had to deal with three people" is a scintillating one. Of course, if native users of English cared two hoots for logical syntax,

They had to deal with Madan, a revolutionary and rake

would be the obligatory usage when `Madan' and `a revolutionary and rake' are alternative nouns for the same entity. That way, the ambiguity you point out would not arise.

You know, I saw your point instantly. But, I am ashamed to admit, I should not necessarily have spotted the logical clanger in the `Madan' sentence if you had not made that point but simply asked me if the sentence is correctly constructed. Thanks.

Can one say:

She is an author, a painter, a singer and a mother',

or should it be:

 She is an author, painter, singer and mother'?

Clearly, the latter is the logical construction, for the reason that you noted in the `Madan' sentence. For that reason, it is the correct usage. I don't for a moment doubt, however, that any number of people will tell you that the former is perfectly correct. (It is not; and people who, like you, are capable of clear thought should not be bullied into thinking themselves 'fussy/obtuse'.)

FURTHER COMMENT FROM READERS WILL BE GRATEFULLY RECEIVED.

Return to `Parts of Speech'