Would it mean another 6 a.m within the 24 hours?

< Previous | Next >

Hyeonjeong

Senior Member
Korean
I met her at 6 a.m when the Sun rose.

Is the sentence impossible ( or grammatically incorrect ) just because there is no comma before the word when? Without it, would it mean there is another (extra) 6 a.m within the 24 hours?

I think it won't matter with it or without it although its meanings are not the same.

Could you help me clarify it? Thank you always.
 
  • Jimbob_Disco

    Senior Member
    British English
    You've hit the nail on the head...
    Grammatically, it is wrong and does require the insertion of a comma, however in day-to-day life it is perfectly understandable and carries with it no sense of ambiguity.
     

    PaulQ

    Senior Member
    UK
    English - England
    "I met her at 6 a.m when the Sun rose," is a strange sentence - as it has "at 6 a.m" and "when the sun rose" which are both adverbial phrases - one amplifies the other -> "I met her at 6 a.m, which was when the Sun rose,"

    To imply that there "is another (extra) 6 a.m within the 24 hours", it would have to be:
    I met her at the 6 a.m when the Sun rose,"
    and this would imply that there is another 6.am. (Pedantically, this is possible when crossing a time zone at high speed or where daylight time adjustment takes place.)
     

    Hyeonjeong

    Senior Member
    Korean
    "I met her at 6 a.m when the Sun rose," is a strange sentence - as it has "at 6 a.m" and "when the sun rose" which are both adverbial phrases - one amplifies the other -> "I met her at 6 a.m, which was when the Sun rose,"

    To imply that there "is another (extra) 6 a.m within the 24 hours", it would have to be:
    I met her at the 6 a.m when the Sun rose,"
    and this would imply that there is another 6.am. (Pedantically, this is possible when crossing a time zone at high speed or where daylight time adjustment takes place.)
    Thank you so much for your kind answer.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top