I think you`ve identified the problem with plural parentheses quite gracefully (and, yes, I also like the more concise term). I don`t question the parentetic pluralization in which you add an option (s) to the object if the quantity is not known (for example.B. creditors as in this post), but a clarifying statement that is part of the subject (or maybe not; that`s what I`m asking). So let`s keep it simple. For our purposes, a parenthesis is one of two curved marks that look like this: () and parentheses are the two marks. Parentheses are not part of the subject, despite appearances. Be sure to punctuate properly if punctuation is required both inside and outside the hooks. If that sentence had no parentheses, it would have a composite – plural – subject and you would write the Sherman Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act do not apply. Consider the examples below (hooks are associated with commas): you can see how inelegant verb selections are. “Paid contribution” or “contribution”? “contractor” or “contractor”? Normally, we ignore the information in parentheses when we choose a verb, but it`s a bad solution if it makes the reader stumble. I salute Erik`s instinct to remove the parentheses.
They look funny, and they can make a subject-verb arrangement a guessing game in sentences. Q. I do not know how to deal with the subject-verb agreement in sentences with dashes or parentheses. For example: “The president (and, to some extent, Congress) is engaged in politics” or “The President – and to some extent Congress – is engaged in politics.” Is it fair to treat the subject as a singular or plural in each of these sentences? Our rules for punctuating with parentheses can be found on the page of parentheses and parentheses. Rule 1 says, “If the material in parentheses ends a sentence, the period takes place according to the parentheses.” Rule 2 states that periods only go into brackets if an entire sentence is in parentheses. But your sentence sounds like an excerpt from a legal document. Other rules may apply. We recommend either the Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, published by the Harvard Law Review Association or the ALWD Citation Manual: A Professional System of Citation, prepared and published by the Association of Legal Writing Directors and Darby Dickerson.
Your punctuation is correct. They do not violate the punctuation mark rule, because at the end of the sentence, there is the acrochable expression. In this sentence, we only use one period because it ends with etc. The commas could have been used in the first example. in the second example, a double point could have been used. The use of parentheses suggests that the author felt that the information was less important – almost a reflection. I hope you can help me with the following sentence. “With our biological eyes we will see the humanity of Jesus, God will be reflected in creatures, etc.
(i.e. natural bliss).” It is not so much the sentence, I suppose it could be better written. But there is an “etc” that ends in a period, and then there is a parenthesis. In such a case, there is a period after the “etc.” and another period after the parenthesis, isn`t it? But this seems to break the rule of a period after a shortcut with a period.