Quick Grammar Check - 26 words.

[barrett1987]

Can a grammartician please look at this line and tell me what's wrong.

If things ever got quiet he ran because more likely than not, trouble would be coming and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Can a grammartician please look at this line and tell me what's wrong.

If things ever got quiet he ran because more likely than not, trouble would be coming and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

Run on sentence.

Split that monster up and revise into at least two sentences.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

If things ever got quiet - I think there's a tense issue here that needs a wee rewrite

he ran because

more likely than not - I think this could be a parenthesis for flow

, trouble would be coming and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

As a fan of monster sentences I think it could be one:*

If things were ever quiet he ran because, more likely than not, trouble would be coming and he didn't want to be there when it arrived.

* but I'm no Ursa, or TJ, or Harebrain.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

If things ever got quiet he ran because more likely than not, trouble would be coming and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

I'm not against long sentences, so I wouldn't necessarily break it up into shorter ones, myself. You could split it a bit with a semi-colon, though, and I think your "wouldn't" is out of place.


If things ever got quiet, he ran; more than likely, trouble would be coming, and he didn't want to be there when it arrived.

ETA: ...aaand springs already said that.

 

[Kylara]

Could split it up into two or play around with the ru on like springs said, perhaps:

When things got quiet he ran(; or -) (because) more often than not trouble would be coming, and he didn't want to be there when it arrived.

Something like that. But personally I'd probably cut it in half

 

[HareBrain]

There is a tense inconsistency. Keeping as close to the original as possible:

If things ever got quiet he ran because more likely than not, trouble was coming and he didn't want to be there when it arrived.

But you're here describing what it is his practice to do now (in which case it might be wise to drop the "ever"). If you want to talk about what he would do in some possible future, you need this:

If things ever got quiet he would run, because more likely than not, trouble would be coming and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

 

[barrett1987]

Thanks guys

Wyn had learnt a long time ago that if things ever got truly quiet then he should run, because more likely than not, trouble was on the way and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

Oh, p.s hope this was ok posting here and not in critique forum. Wasn't 100% sure.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Sorry, but the comma really needs to go after because and not before. The reason for that is that if you remove the parts within the commas (a parenthesis) the sentence still makes sense, whereas if you leave it where it is, and take away the section within the commas, then the sentence doesn't.

Alternatively you could remove more likely that not and leave the comma where you have it. But at the moment you're linking because to the more likely than not instead of to the trouble being on its way. I hope that makes sense.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

If you keep the "because", I would put a comma before AND after -- but some people balk at that many commas, which is why I suggested trading the "because" for a semi-colon.

 

[Kylara]

SEMI COLONS FOR THE WIN! I agree with Dusty, double comma the "because" or semi colon (psssst SEMI COLONS!!!!)

 

[Dozmonic]

I wouldn't worry about the grammar. It's an awkward sentence, there are tense complications, so it gets a rewrite.

He would run if things ever got quiet, because trouble was coming more likely than not, and he didn't want to be there when it arrived.

 

[Ursa major]

My two pennyworth:

Whenever it became too quiet, he ran; chances were, trouble was on its way and he'd rather not be there when it arrived.​

 

[tinkerdan]

In this case you could almost get away without the comma in front of because but if you want a pause the single one before because works.
My Gregg reference gives some good examples and this one falls within those examples.
or if you want to help the reader try this.

Wyn had learnt a long time ago that if things ever got truly quiet then he should run; because more likely than not trouble was on the way and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

Read this out loud and see what I mean. Any more punctuation would be more a matter of what you are really trying to say.

Thanks guys

Wyn had learnt a long time ago that if things ever got truly quiet then he should run, because more likely than not, trouble was on the way and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

Oh, p.s hope this was ok posting here and not in critique forum. Wasn't 100% sure.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm not sure - a conjunction with a semi-colon seem to cancel each other out. I think either because or the semi, but not both?

 

[barrett1987]

Got it. Went with the semicolon. Huzzah!

 

[sknox]

I'm in the split-it-up camp. You're trying to say too many things in a single sentence. Why? The initial statement works fine on its own, though the re-written version is stronger.

Wyn had learnt a long time ago that if things ever got truly quiet then he should run.

The rest of original sentence is over-explaining. Your reader knows what you mean. I'd still remove one word, and add a comma, thus:

Wyn had learnt a long time ago that if things ever got truly quiet, he should run.

 

[JonH]

>If things ever got quiet he ran because more likely than not, trouble would be coming and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

I think the initial issue, between "if" and "ran" could be fixed the other way, by replacing "if" with "when" or "whenever". It just depends whether Wyn runs away on a regular basis.

If he's never run, but he's learned that he should if things ever got quiet, then the change you've gone for is good. If he has a history of running, you'd be better changing it to:

When things got quiet, Wyn ran. More likely than not trouble would be coming, and he didn’t want to be there when it arrived.

If he runs all the time use whenever.

(I'm okay with because and a comma, but I don't like the semi-colon in this case.)

 

[Ronald T.]

Can a grammartician please look at this line and tell me what's wrong.

If things ever got quiet he ran because more likely than not, trouble would be coming and he wouldn’t want to be there when it arrived.

I would write it this way:

-- It was simple. When things grew quite, he always ran for cover. Silence often meant trouble was near, or was on its way. He'd learned that lesson the hard way. Now he made certain he wasn't there when it arrived.

 

[J Riff]

I don't like 'got quiet' so much. Hey... get quiet. It got quiet.... well I suppose. If things ever became quiet... if quietness was achieved.... NM *

 

[tinkerdan]

The OP may have long ago closed this.
But on reflection-if I were to write this I'd break it down into what it actually says.

When things grew quiet, that's when trouble appeared; Wyn had learnt to run before it arrived.

From there you might try to draw it out with more words-but less is more.

Except::
When things quietened, trouble quickened and Wyn skedaddled.

:: might be pushing it.