Are Incoherent Sentences Objectively Grammatically Incorrect?

[Scott]

Is the following sentence objectively grammatically incorrect?

The audience that would be most suitable for this novel would be anyone with a fascination for science would normally be the ideal audience for this novel.

Why or why not? If it is absolutely objectively wrong, what grammar rule is it breaking specifically?

It would seem to me the grammar error(s) with the sentence are not merely subjective or aesthetic. But if that's the case then how would you describe the error?

[EvaDar]

Is the following sentence objectively grammatically incorrect?

The audience that would be most suitable for this novel would be anyone with a fascination for science would normally be the ideal audience for this novel.

Why or why not? If it is absolutely objectively wrong, what grammar rule is it breaking specifically?

It would seem to me the grammar error(s) with the sentence are not merely subjective or aesthetic. But if that's the case then how would you describe the error?

I hope a geekier grammar geek than I will take this on. But I will give it a go:

There are two significant problems: an objective grammatical error and a redundancy problem.
1. Objective error:
The sentence structure is incorrect. I think what is happening is that "Anyone with a fascination for science" is playing the role of both subject and object, if you were to diagram the sentence. I'm guessing at this, because the strange structure kind of defies analysis. And even if the content wasn't redundant, the sentence is missing a pronoun, such as which, that would refer to the subject and tie in the final phrase.

"The audience that would be most suitable for this novel would be anyone with a fascination for science, which would normally be the ideal audience for this novel."
You can see that repairing this mistake does not solve the problem. It may now be technically correct, but the sentence is still nonsensical due to the redundancy. I understand your question asks what grammar rule is involved. I do not find one that addresses this unique issue.

2. Redundancy:
Redundancy is considered bad form but is not always considered an objective mistake.
https://writingcommons.org/index.php/op ... redundancy
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writ ... words.html

This case is severe, so I would call it an error.

The issue is the redundancy of the first and last phrases, and of the verb form "would be." "The audience that would be most suitable for this novel," and "would normally be the ideal audience for this novel" obviously say exactly the same thing. So that would be considered a redundancy error. In addition, "would be" appears three times, referring to the same subject. "The audience that would be most suitable for this novel would be...., which would normally be...."

The sentence should obviously be rewritten without the redundancies:
"The most suitable audience for this novel would be anyone with a fascination for science."

I do hope someone might add to my thoughts. I learned a few things from looking into it.
@Zora C Penter ?

[Zora C Penter]

1. Objective error:
The sentence structure is incorrect. I think what is happening is that "Anyone with a fascination for science" is playing the role of both subject and object, if you were to diagram the sentence. I'm guessing at this, because the strange structure kind of defies analysis. And even if the content wasn't redundant, the sentence is missing a pronoun, such as which, that would refer to the subject and tie in the final phrase.

"The audience that would be most suitable for this novel would be anyone with a fascination for science, which would normally be the ideal audience for this novel."
You can see that repairing this mistake does not solve the problem. It may now be technically correct, but the sentence is still nonsensical due to the redundancy. I understand your question asks what grammar rule is involved. I do not find one that addresses this unique issue.

You are definitely right that the phrase "anyone with a fascination for science" is acting in a dual role here. While this is an error in sentence structure, I could not find any examples exactly the same as this one. Since the overlap would create two complete thoughts if doubled, I would call this a run-on sentence. Of the two types, this would be a fused sentence and not a comma splice.

"The audience that would be most suitable for this novel would be anyone with a fascination for science."
"Anyone with a fascination for science would normally be the ideal audience for this novel."
http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/fusedsentence.htm

As you have already mentioned, this would still not be entirely correct because of the redundancy.

[Espie]

I agree with @Eva Darrington and @Zora C Penter. The sentence has areas for improvement as they've described.

Nonetheless, I believe the flaws are "stylistic" errors that shouldn't be penalised in the objective portion of a review scorecard but could be discussed in the subjective part. (This could change, though, if we would be able to come up with our own prescriptive style guide later.)

Sources state the following, among others:

-Redundancies or pleonasms are sometimes used in literary writing. (Reference: https://literarydevices.net/pleonasm/ and https://gmat.economist.com/gmat-advice/ ... correction)

-Although the sentence isn't ideal, it doesn't seem to fall within the strict definition of run-on or fused sentences. Even if it does, such isn't always considered a real grammatical error. (Reference: https://undergrad.stanford.edu/tutoring ... te-writing)

[Kendra M Parker]

Complete sentences have 5 component parts:
1. Subject
2. Verb
3. Capital Letter
4. End Mark
5. Makes Complete Sense

Without any of these component parts, we no longer have a complete sentence. We would definitely mark the sentence wrong if it didn’t have a capital letter or an end mark, so why should we allow “nonsensical” to be considered stylistic?

Redundancy should be considered stylistic, assuming the sentence still make sense and is grammatically correct; however, if the sentence no longer makes complete sense or violates a grammar rule (as in the example), we need to mark it wrong.

This clause from the example...
The audience that would be the most suitable for this novel would be anyone with a fascination for science
...could easily have an end mark after science, making it an independent clause.

The second part is pulling
“...anyone with a fascination for science...” as the subject and tagging on “...would normally be the ideal audience for the novel.”
That makes this a second independent clause.

We now have two independent clauses improperly joined. That makes this a run-on sentence and therefore grammatically incorrect.

[EvaDar]

Complete sentences have 5 component parts:
1. Subject
2. Verb
3. Capital Letter
4. End Mark
5. Makes Complete Sense

Without any of these component parts, we no longer have a complete sentence. We would definitely mark the sentence wrong if it didn’t have a capital letter or an end mark, so why should we allow “nonsensical” to be considered stylistic?

Redundancy should be considered stylistic, assuming the sentence still make sense and is grammatically correct; however, if the sentence no longer makes complete sense or violates a grammar rule (as in the example), we need to mark it wrong.

This clause from the example...
The audience that would be the most suitable for this novel would be anyone with a fascination for science
...could easily have an end mark after science, making it an independent clause.

The second part is pulling
“...anyone with a fascination for science...” as the subject and tagging on “...would normally be the ideal audience for the novel.”
That makes this a second independent clause.

We now have two independent clauses improperly joined. That makes this a run-on sentence and therefore grammatically incorrect.

This is a helpful way to approach this - as two independent clauses without proper punctuation or coordination - which is indeed the definition of a run-on sentence. The fact that the clauses contain a phrase in common may be irrelevant in this case.

[Espie]

@Kendra M Parker and @Eva Darrington, your explanations make sense and are quite helpful. As I have said earlier, I agree that the sentence is imperfect as it is; your recommended revisions are a better way of expressing its thought. Thank you.

Kendra, your list is good. All four items are objective although the fifth one seems subjective. Eva, the definition of a run-on sentence also appears to be so. We've had too many discussion topics on this forum (and not to mention similar ones in non-OBC sites) on the use of commas for coordination alone; I'm not too sure if there's already some closure on the said discussions but I reckon there's none yet. (Also, although starting a sentence with a capital letter is already definite, there are even variations in capitalisation rules for words found elsewhere.) Run-on sentences may be considered errors but they are more stylistically so.
Reference: https://literarydevices.net/run-on-sentence/

Sentence meaning and sense will be a more volatile subject to discuss, therefore. There's a difference between a "descriptive" and a "prescriptive" theoretical framework for grammar. The first describes what's commonly used, but what's common fluctuates over time. Also, we need a style guide or reference of our own if we're going to penalise deviations for the latter.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar

Whereas all the major style guides may likely agree more to your first four elements, I am yet to obtain a suitable reference that shows there's already a hard and fast rule for your fifth. If school-taught, supposedly easier-to-learn punctuation rules could still vary across style guides, it is realistic to expect more variations in other grammar areas. We could also notice that even the most established and professional or technical institutions have seen the need to come up with style guides of their own to address such grammar-related discrepancies and to perhaps achieve more clarity and consistency among other reasons.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide

It is also common knowledge that what makes sense to one person may not be so for another. For example, the fact that you were able to analyse the sentence already means that you already know what the sentence-writer meant; I did, too. However, that's based on my personal definition of what's "sensible or common-sensical"; others' definition may vary from mine. (On a similar note, although a bit off-topic and at the opposite side of the spectrum, there are commonly accepted sentence constructions that are not inherently acknowledged as technically grammatically correct either.)
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_u ... troversies

If we're going to come up with our own prescriptive style guide later, I'd definitely support your descriptive concept of what's "grammatically correct" in this particular case. Without such a specific pronouncement or guide, the sentence is flawed (only) "subjectively" and not (yet) "objectively" based on what I could glean from our current internal procedures and available references so far. If such a guide with your particular rule materialises, then it must be applied prospectively for future breaches and not retroactively.