-
khandelwal.ab
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:22 am
Hi Experts,
I came across the below sentence in the Economist. Similar constructions confuse me often.
Original Sentence- JUNE 28th was a day of reckoning for the most important law of Barack Obama's presidency, and for the president himself.
The underlined part in the above sentence has two parts that are made parallel. For the most...Presidency and for the president...
Would it be wrong to skip 'for' from the second item in the list? I.e. would the following sentence be wrong:
JUNE 28th was a day of reckoning for the most important law of Barack Obama's presidency, and the president himself.
I understand that the original construction sounds better, but is the modified version, which skips 'for', technically incorrect?
I came across the below sentence in the Economist. Similar constructions confuse me often.
Original Sentence- JUNE 28th was a day of reckoning for the most important law of Barack Obama's presidency, and for the president himself.
The underlined part in the above sentence has two parts that are made parallel. For the most...Presidency and for the president...
Would it be wrong to skip 'for' from the second item in the list? I.e. would the following sentence be wrong:
JUNE 28th was a day of reckoning for the most important law of Barack Obama's presidency, and the president himself.
I understand that the original construction sounds better, but is the modified version, which skips 'for', technically incorrect?
