I love this place.

Wish I had the resources to get all of us active members together for a bash.

These hands are deadly weapons! Woosh woosh...chop..chop.

Ooops.. I quoted the whole post somehow.

Disclaimer: I am not taking this seriously at all -- just a fun exercise ;-)

Context is everything:

[In discussing the optical drives in Apple computers] Unless you go with the tower they're POS laptop drives.

In this case, "they're" must refer to something other than "tower" because a) disagreement in number, and b) a tower is obviously not a drive. Given the context, the reference is obviously to the hard drives ...


Similarly:

I love these sandals. Unless you have big feet they're quite comfortable footwear.

and

I love these sandals. Unless you have big feet, they're quite comfortable footwear.

To me say exactly the same thing. The second may be more correct grammatically (and less clunky to read), but adding the comma doesn't really appear to change the actual meaning in this case =)

To avoid all confusion, you ought to provide the proper ( ) subordinating conjunction to the understood main clause. The "Yeah" really means "Yes, optical drives on computers are always one of the first components to fail." The clause that follows is composed of two subordinate clauses, but the first subordinating conjunction is left out (it's understood). The second subordinating conjunction is "unless." So to avoid confusion the sentence ought to read as follows:

"Yeah, because, unless you go with the tower, they're POS laptop drives."

And to be fully expressive (I love this stuff!), it would look like this:

"Yes, optical drives on computers are always one of the first components to fail because, unless you go with the tower, they're POS laptop drives."

Ya had to start this stuff up!

I love when you talk dirty Grammar.

I love subordinating others.

That notwithstanding, the original objection was that Jim failed to include a comma at one point in the statement that was actually made (as opposed to the optimal verbiage you propose). I still maintain the addition of that comma would have made no difference in terms of comprehension ...

In regards:

"Yeah, because, unless you go with the tower, they're POS laptop drives."

I'd maintain that "because" and the comma afterwards is superfluous -- the main point being "Unless you go with the tower(,) they're POS laptop drives," which says the same thing while being more economical. Which brings us back to the original sentence.

And I agree your ultimate solution is more expressive. But in the practical sense of a conversation, restating what has already been said isn't necessarily beneficial* ...



*Unless you're having a KM-like conversation, in which case you'd need to recapitulate entire pages ;-)

You're right. My point is that the confusion derives from the suppression of the subordinating conjunction, "because." That kind of stuff happens all the time in both spoken and written English, and sometimes leads to the ambiguity that started the discussion of grammar. In some cases a comma could reduce the ambiguity, and in this case, I agree with the point. But that's not true in every case where subordinating conjunctions are suppressed.

Anyway, I'm not advocating for the "fully expressive" form (and by fully expressive I mean that in that sentence every grammatical clause is clearly expressed)--I used that to underscore the grammar and, as a consequence, the original punctuational point that underlie the ambiguity.