Can I omit the word "from" in this sentence?

[OuttaInc]

Is this sentence grammatically correct:

Large, irregular-shaped tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.

Or must I write,

Large, irregular-shaped tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads from floor to ceiling.

Help me, I re-write this sentence every time I come across it.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I don't really have a technical answer to this. But I prefer the first one.

 

[JunkMonkey]

Me too.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

im no grammatical but I’m pretty sure example 2 is the correct one. Having said that, I’d be fine with either, although I might play with the flow

 

[Wayne Mack]

I'd say go with either with or without from. I agree with Jo, though, and would probably rewrite the sentence. It felt a little overwhelming without any sort of punctuation break.

 

[OuttaInc]

I'd say go with either with or without from. I agree with Jo, though, and would probably rewrite the sentence. It felt a little overwhelming without any sort of punctuation break.

It is a little unwieldy. I'm going to ditch the "Large" descriptor. Later exposition makes it obvious they're large.

I think this is a little tighter, even if the original question still stands:

Irregular-shaped tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.

Since nobody has accused me of ruining their keyboards with spat-out tea at such poor grammar, I'm going to assume the "from" transgression (if there is one) is the kind that can be overlooked.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

It is a little unwieldy. I'm going to ditch the "Large" descriptor. Later exposition makes it obvious they're large.

I think this is a little tighter, even if the original question still stands:

Irregular-shaped tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.

Since nobody has accused me of ruining their keyboards with spat-out tea at such poor grammar, I'm going to assume the "from" transgression (if there is one) is the kind that can be overlooked.

I think what you need is to insert commas
Irregular shaped tanks, filled with live specimens, lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.


that way the irregular tanks are linked to lining the bulkheads, and the contents are separate. Done like that the from isn’t needed at all - without something to sort out the clashes it’s hard to understand.

 

[tinkerdan]

The 'rule' might be; when leaving a word out of a sentence always read it back to make sure it reads well and still makes sense in that it still means what you intend.

 

[The Judge]

As others have said, formally the "from" is required, but it can be dispensed with in the right circumstances. However, I also agree that it's very ungainly as a sentence and I found there was a hiatus as I'd tried to parse my way through it. Jo's idea of splitting off the sub-clause with commas works -- dashes could also be used -- but the length of the sentence means it makes the rhythm rather jerky. Which might be what you want, of course, but personally, I'd invert the sentence to make it smoother and easier to read, which also mirrors the way the POV character is looking (one sees the larger picture first before realising what one is seeing) and gives the reveal last, putting the emphasis where it's needed ie

From floor to ceiling, the bulkheads were lined with large, irregular-shaped tanks filled with live specimens.​

I'd leave the "large" there, by the way, to help with the rhythm.

 

[Ursa major]

Personally, I don't like the version without the "from", but I have a different issue with the sentence and that's the mention of irregular shaped** tanks from floor to ceiling.

My brain is wondering how these irregular shapes can: 1) between them, all reach from floor to ceiling**? 2) balance on top of each other if they are of different sizes, possibly in all three dimensions?

I accept that (1) is very pedantic, but that does not mean it didn't draw attention to itself at the expense of being drawn out of the narrative (not that there is much narrative in a short example). But (2) makes me wonder that, if the tanks are of different lengths, widths and depths -- i.e. a complete jumble -- how they are able to remain in position. Is there adjustable shelving? (I'm now assuming so -- I didn't do so initially -- but a hint would be nice and would stop my mind from wondering how it all fits together.)

So while you might think that your phrase is a useful summing up of what the PoV character sees (or narrator "sees") it provides me not with a description but a puzzle of which I really don't need to be aware (let alone devise a solution for it).

So I'd probably go with the something more like:

Shelving lining the bulkheads from floor to ceiling was stocked full of large, irregularly-shaped tanks filled with live specimens.​

** - Shouldn't they be irregularly shaped, not irregular-shaped.

 

[Bren G]

Second one is technically the more correct. However, there are so many stylistic choices in novels these days that you can use either. Rules are made to be broken so go with the one you think fits your style. Tell a good story first, things like this are minor.

 

[OuttaInc]

Thank you everyone for the feedback! I really appreciate it, especially the much-improved alternatives from @Jo Zebedee and @The Judge. Sometimes we're so close to our own writing that we can't see what it needs.

@Ursa major Thanks for your questions. I'm writing a story about an aquatic alien species and this sentence kicks off a description of their laboratory. Rather than stacks of rectangular aquariums like we might see on Earth, I'm envisioning my aliens' aquariums as a massive Weaire-Phelan structure (basically, the shapes bubbles make in a foam.)

As to irregularly- vs irregular-shaped.... I *think* it's either "irregular-shaped" or "shaped irregularly," but I admit to not being sure, so I will definitely double-check.

 

[Please Be Nice]

Is this sentence grammatically correct:

Large, irregular-shaped tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.

Or must I write,

Large, irregular-shaped tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads from floor to ceiling.

Help me, I re-write this sentence every time I come across it.

"Rhombus shaped glass tanks filled with salmon rose to the ceiling of the bulkhead."

I would say your sentence isn't saying anything concrete. As I read it I had to fill in the abstract language with concrete lnaguage in order to see anything. Large without something relative is too abstract. how is the shape irregular? compared to what? again abstract. What specimens? How is the pov seeing around the corners and through walls to see the plural bulkheads all at once? is it from top down?

Just be clearer in your language.

Also the comma and hyphen and italic are un-needed.

 

[JS Wiig]

"Rhombus shaped glass tanks filled with salmon rose to the ceiling of the bulkhead."

To me that makes it sound like the tanks are helium balloons. And “salmon rose” sounds too close to salmon roe and makes me envision fish eggs.

 

[Ursa major]

Rather than stacks of rectangular aquariums like we might see on Earth, I'm envisioning my aliens' aquariums as a massive Weaire-Phelan structure

Thanks for explaining, and that makes both more sense than what I was thinking of and is, of course, more visually arresting.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I think that when it comes to story writing, it's always more important to choose what works best rather than what is grammatically correct.

I think that the word 'large' helps if you don't want the reader to think that they are smaller boxes stacked on top of each other rather than single units; if they are really high ceilings, maybe consider 'vast' instead?

Have you considered using ' teeming' rather than 'filled' as this would suggest they are crammed in like sardines? Also have you considered describing the tanks rather than saying that they are irregularly shaped, as 'irregular' doesn't really paint a picture in the reader's mind. If they are Weaire-Phelan structures, why not just describe them as hexagonal? And if they are aquaria why not say that rather than 'tank' (which could be misconstrued)

Vast hexagonal aquaria, teeming with live specimens, lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.

 

[Astro Pen]

First one, with a comma after bulkheads feels right to me.

 

[hitmouse]

Large, irregular-shaped tanks, filled with live specimens, lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.

I always think to myself: how would Jack Vance write this?

Irregular-shaped seems a bit clumsy. You could try either:

Large tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.

…which lets the imagination fill in the shapes. Or if not, then something like:

Various tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.

A sentence describing the lighting or the smell of the room or the hum of the pumps might contribute more than the shape of the tanks.

 

[OuttaInc]

Thanks again to everyone who took time to offer suggestions. You've certainly given me lots of food for thought!

One quick note on why I chose the word "irregular" to describe these containers... this is the reference photo I'm using:

My main character is a young woman with a very basic math/science background so my challenge is to describe these unfamiliar structures in terms she would use. (I say "challenge" but this is the most enjoyable part of writing for me- taking a sentence and swapping out different words, each time coming one step closer to capturing what the character sees and thinks.)

Thank you all again for your help. Chrons is a goldmine.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

Is this sentence grammatically correct:

Large, irregular-shaped tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads floor to ceiling.

Or must I write,

Large, irregular-shaped tanks filled with live specimens lined the bulkheads from floor to ceiling.

Help me, I re-write this sentence every time I come across it.

Both are entirely understandable.