Well, I could have phrased it "wearing a..." and "bearing a...", or perhaps used the single verb "carrying". The obvious verb would have been "sporting", but its a verb I hate using. I quite like "wearing" in this sentence.
(d) would only be used by someone, if they knew how to write, for some kind of dramatic effect. Since the first "and" has an entirely different use from the second "and", an Oxford comma is obviously called for. Without it the reader is led down a false trail from which he has to draw back. The impact of this construction would be to make the reader focus particularly on this sentence.
But this raises an interesting point. If the two "ands" were to have the same use, the first "and" should not be there; it should be replaced by a comma. Therefore, one could argue (although I would not) that the use of two "ands" in this way would indicate that the second "and" has a second function from the first.
The reason I would not argue this is that I have on occasion used the multiple "and" to indicate a rant, where the "ands" do have the same function.
But all this is rather irrelevantly pedantic (as,indeed, the whole post has been).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: wearing bruised foreheads
Date: 2005-09-18 09:28 pm (UTC)(d) would only be used by someone, if they knew how to write, for some kind of dramatic effect. Since the first "and" has an entirely different use from the second "and", an Oxford comma is obviously called for. Without it the reader is led down a false trail from which he has to draw back. The impact of this construction would be to make the reader focus particularly on this sentence.
But this raises an interesting point. If the two "ands" were to have the same use, the first "and" should not be there; it should be replaced by a comma. Therefore, one could argue (although I would not) that the use of two "ands" in this way would indicate that the second "and" has a second function from the first.
The reason I would not argue this is that I have on occasion used the multiple "and" to indicate a rant, where the "ands" do have the same function.
But all this is rather irrelevantly pedantic (as,indeed, the whole post has been).