Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dshmitty t1_j1gu77i wrote

Yeah I would have wrote it as “Scott Morrison’s father (the ex prime minister) was the head of…”

Edit: I’m dumb I thought Scott Morrison was the son of the prime minister lol. So, better way to write it would be “the father of ex prime minister Scott Morrison was blah blah”

5

cpt_ppppp t1_j1gv6wa wrote

would this not be saying that Scott Morrison's father was the ex prime minister?

Personally I would go with 'The father of ex-prime minister, Scott Morrison, was the head of...'

but what do I know, English be tough sometimes

23

hughperman t1_j1hlnn6 wrote

Good call. In weird phrasing cases, I usually just break it into smaller sentences. "Scott Morrison is the ex-prime minister. His father was..."

−1

bmorejaded t1_j1gwwwk wrote

Needs commas instead of parenthesis.

4

dshmitty t1_j1gx24x wrote

Yeah that works too but I was wrong, Scott Morrison was the prime minister. I don’t know shit about Australia lol

2

Potential_Sherbet513 t1_j1h4qka wrote

Not true, brackets are fine there

2

bmorejaded t1_j1hromv wrote

They technically work here but the information seems integral. They're overused in a lot of writing. They are most effective when adding information that isn't easily included by is necessary to understand the sentence. I'm not the only one to say this and there are a couple examples floating around.

2

dshmitty t1_j1jchya wrote

When you say brackets are you referring to parentheses, these ( )? This is so confusing. In the US, these are brackets [ ] and these are parentheses ( ). But apparently in other places brackets by itself means parentheses unless specified, “square brackets” for example. I never knew that

0