There just seems to be something wrong with this paragraph. But my brain isn't firing on all cylinders, and I can't think of a fix. Or maybe there is nothing wrong with it? India is steeped in history, and no more so than the remote, far northern region of Ladahk, through which the mighty Indus River roars. Fed from year round, snow capped mountains over 3 miles high, and from which the country takes its name.
Maybe take out the 'india is steeped in history part' and just say, 'Ladahk, in the far northern region of India, is an area steeped in history.' Then construct the rest of it from there.
The part I don't like is Also, I don't think the comma in front of snow capped mountains is right, because year-round complements snow-capped.
"More" is a comparative, so you could do with something to compare. The easiest fix would be "India is steeped in history, and no more so than in the remote, far northern region of Ladahk, through which the mighty Indus River roars." That implies a comparison with other regions. And wow! The mountains are mountains all year round? I don't think that's what you meant to say. The sentence is missing a subject, too. Maybe try: India is steeped in history, and no more so than in the remote, far northern region of Ladahk. Through this region the mighty Indus River, from which the country takes its name, roars, fed from mountains that are over three miles high and are snow capped all year round.That's assuming you want to stay with long sentences.
Your second sentence is a fragment and poorly constructed anyhow "year round, snow capped mountains" is a problem, because the comma there is making the reader think "fed from year round" is its own clause (I think that's what it would be called). Fed from year-round snow-capped mountains is a bit bulky, though, but see how it changes it so the 'year round' is modifying the mountains now, not the feeding. Fed year round from snow capped mountains or fed from mountains which are snow capped year round both make a lot more sense too. But you still have the issue that the sentence is a fragment, as you're talking about something that doesn't exist in the sentence, the river. Add the river into it: India is steeped in history, and no more so than the remote, far northern region of Ladahk, through which the mighty Indus River roars. The Indus is fed from mountains three miles high and snow capped year round and where the country gets its name. Or cut "through which the mighty Indus river roars" and modify as such: India is steeped in history, and no more so than the remote, far northern region of Ladahk. In this region, the Indus River is fed from mountains three miles high and snow capped year round and where the country gets its name. Curiously, though, I don't understand how river = steeped in history.
Thanks everyone for the input. I'm liking this above other than it seems to have lost a bit of oomph, which maybe as you say from being too long a sentence. So maybe. "India is steeped in history, and no more so than in the remote, far northern region of Ladahk. Through this region the mighty Indus River, from which the country takes its name, roars, fed from mountains that are over three miles high." Is that really how it sounds, or did you miss the fed part? "Fed from year round, snow capped mountains over 3 miles high, and from which the country takes its name."
That seems ok, although I don't like the isolated "roars". To fix that I think you'd have to break it into two sentences, but then it seems to get choppy. No, I didn't miss the "fed" part. "Year round" and "snow capped" both seem to qualify "mountains", rather than "year round" qualifying "snow capped". It's the comma's fault, but you can't sensibly take it out so you have to rephrase.
Maybe. It depends on what the rest of the stuff around it is like. If it's all like that then yes, a couple of simple sentences would break it up nicely. But if the rest is simple too then something like this takes it out of "See John. See John run" territory.
Ok how about: India is steeped in history, and no more so than in the remote, far northern region of Ladahk. Through this region roars the mighty Indus River, from which the country takes its name, fed from mountains that are over three miles high.
I think the sample alone indicates a need to simplify. If the surrounding prose is written similarly, it to cries out for simpler writing. The text presented tries to cram too much into each sentence. That is the fundamental flaw that needs to be addressed.
I see a few problems. The first is with "...and no more so...". This construction seems to require that you start with a group of things, and you just have one thing, India. One possible rewrite could be: "Most regions of India are steeped in history, none more so than..." Then, "Fed from year round..." seems to say that the mountains exist year round, implying that there are some mountains that exist only during parts of the year. I assume that "year round" refers to "fed", so I'd change it to: "Fed year round from snow capped mountains over three miles high..." Then, that sentence doesn't have a subject. We can tell from the context that you're referring to the river, but the sentence itself doesn't have one. So I'd further change it to: "The river, from which the country takes its name, is fed year round from snow capped mountains over three miles high." Beyond that, I agree that some simplification is called for, though I'd need more context to tell exactly how. ChickenFreak
I understand what you are saying in the first part, but would have to disagree. The sentence refers to India "steeped in history" inferring there is a lot of it, but no more so than in Ladahk. The second part has been fixed by removing the "snow capped mountains" which also partly takes care of the simplify suggestions. In the end it's not literature, its a magazine article about Ladahk. Which necessitates a fare amount of description. Other wise I might as well just write. It's Ladahk, go there. Thanks for the input though.
Is Ladahk a country or a region? The mighty Indus River roars its way through the far north region of Ladahk in India. The river is fed by the three miles high, snow capped (here I would name the mountains) mountains from which this historic region takes its name. (I guess the mountains are called 'The Ladahk mountains?) Edit - looking back through the posts, I see that it appears that the region gets it name from the river, I did not read the original sentence that way, I thought the name came from the mountains - which is it?
India, and the far northern region of Ladahk in particular, is steeped in history. The mighty Indus River, from which the country takes its name, roars through the land, fed by snow-capped mountains three miles high. Rachel
Yes, that's not bad. I think I'd change my original suggestion on the first sentence and make it "India is steeped in history, nowhere more so than in the remote, far northern region of Ladahk."
Except we are now getting to versions that "cram" no less information into the sentences (well, we've left the snow to be inferred) but that I think are perfectly reasonable. Not all writing has to be reduced to a lowest common denominator.
I understand that that's what you're saying, but I don't think that it's being said correctly. If I change the topic to: "Snack foods are full of salt, and no more so than potato chips..." does that work? I think that it's grammatically incorrect, though once again I'm hampered by not having the right terms for what's wrong. It could be changed to: "Snack foods are full of salt, none more so than potato chips..." though I still don't like that much; I'd change it to: "Snack foods are full of salt, especially potato chips..." Opinions from others? I'm curious here. ChickenFreak
They don't say the same thing. "None more so" suggests -- or at least allows -- joint first place. "Especially" means it's ahead of the pack.
Hrm, to me 'none more so' means similarly 'ahead of the pack.' Like there have been a lot of fat baseball players, but none more so than Babe Ruth. Meaning he was in a league of his own. If someone was as fat as Babe Ruth, then there wouldn't be 'none more so' as then someone would then be, meaning the none wouldn't be valid any longer, so it would be 'none, but one more so than.'
much of this makes little to no sense... India is steeped in history, and no more so than [misused expression... what you mean there is simply 'especially' or 'in particular']the remote, far northern region of Ladahk, through which the mighty Indus River roars. Fed from year-round, snow-capped mountains over 3[must be spelled out] miles high, and from which the country takes its name. [not a sentence and makes no sense as a fragment... it's referring to the river, but the connection hasn't been made] here's one way it would make better sense, read more coherently, pleasantly: hope this helps... namaste... love and hugs, maia
I'm sorry but that sounds terrible. As far as I know there is no rule that states numbers MUST be spelled out.
I call it common decency. If you're talking about dates, or house numbers or similar things, then there's no need for it to be spelled out, but if you're just talking a number of something (even measurements, yes), then the logical and literate thing to do is spell it out (the general guideline is that you spell out any number underneath one hundred).
