Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Apple founder Steve Jobs are giants

Hello, gmatyodha. Since I believe the community would benefit from a more thorough treatment of each of the answers above, I will supply my thoughts on this question. How about we go in for a closer look?


Analysis: Whenever you have a restrictive use of an appositive, a word or phrase that defines a noun and in this case precedes the proper noun, you may or may not see the restrictive article the. That is, you could write, [The] legendary boxer Muhammed Ali died a few years ago. The sentence is fine with or without the article the because the reader understands that there was only one such legendary boxer named Muhammed Ali.

In this sentence, we have a compound subject in Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. Since the restrictive appositive is placed before each name, two correct versions can be generated:

1) Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Apple founder Steve Jobs are giants...
2) The Microsoft founder Bill Gates and the Apple founder Steve Jobs are giants...

The voice is active, and the subject-verb agreement is there. This option works well. Green light.


Analysis: Now the appositive is placed after the noun it is modifying, and if the appositive comes second, whether restrictive or non-restrictive, you need to use double punctuation to contain it. The correct version of this part of the sentence would read, Bill Gates, the Microsoft founder, and Steve Jobs, the Apple founder, are giants.... If you can eliminate anything on grammatical grounds, then it is wise to do so. Red light.


Analysis: Does named add anything in the way of clarity to the appositive? Likewise, does known add anything in the way of clarity to giants, particularly in light of the non-underlined part of the sentence that mentions people from all walks of life as recognizing the contributions of these tech giants? I would say not. The earlier version in (A) was a more concise version, so although there is nothing grammatically wrong with this option, it is a lesser choice than its counterpart. Red light.


Analysis: This is an interesting one, a case in which the proper noun follows the appositive but is roped off by double commas. Please note that such a usage is not always incorrect, but it is incorrect if the appositive is restrictive. Since the article used is the, the reader is meant to understand that there was one and only one founder of each company in this sentence. If the article said a instead, then Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would be understood to have contributed as part of a duo or team of founders instead: A Microsoft founder, Bill Gates, and an Apple founder, Steve Jobs, are giants.... Since the article used is the, we can eliminate this one on grammatical grounds. Subtle, but a lesson worth learning. Red light.


Analysis: Nothing is wrong with the punctuation here. Since the appositives follow their respective nouns, again, whether the appositive is restrictive or not, the phrase needs to be surrounded by some sort of punctuation: commas, em dashes (--), or parentheses. The problem here is the verb tense. Why invoke the past perfect tense? Are we to understand that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have passed on? Even then, a simple were would do in place of had been. You use the past perfect tense to indicate a prior action when a past tense has already been used in the sentence. This particular sentence has no need to reach back further into the past. Red light.

I hope that helps clarify your understanding of the question. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew