<p>"The Navijo migrated from Canada to the southwestern United States with the Apache and this is why they speak an Apachean language."</p>
<p>There is something wrong with this sentence. I assume it is the "...and this is why..." part. Can someone confirm this as well as explain whether this phrase is always grammatically incorrect?</p>
<p>Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>Hey there! 
Well, I’m sure it is always wrong since the SAT writing section considers wordy sentences/choices to be grammatically incorrect. it would be better to use because instead.
Good Luck!</p>
<p>The pronoun “this” should refer to a noun, whereas here it is referring to the entire previous clause.</p>
<p>“with the Apache” is in the wrong place–misplaced modifier–it should be moved up --“the Navajo migrated with the Apache from Canada to”… etc. Otherwise, it modifies the United States which i messed up, dude.</p>
<p>Not to mention you are missing a comma after “Apache.” Independent clauses.</p>
<p>Also a semicolon and not the and would be better because that’s the logic of the semi colon–otherwise it’s a run on.</p>
<p>^ “with the Apache” is not technically misplaced: the sentence as it was originally written does not mean something other than the intention. “with the Navajo” is not modifying “United States”; that the phrases are adjacent does not imply otherwise. However, making the modification clearer by moving the phrase as you suggest is preferable. </p>
<p>As for the comma, it’s not a hard and fast rule that there be a comma to link two independent clauses. Exceptions occur for stylistic reasons, and these exceptions are generally recognized even in formal grammar. </p>
<p>I’m not following your claim about the logical necessity of a semicolon in the sentence, which is most definitely not a run-on at the moment.</p>
<p>The correct spelling is “Navajo” not “Navijo.” “With the Apache” is awkward and its placement creates confusion – is it trying to say the Navajo and the Apache both migrated from Canada to the area together, or, instead, that they migrated at the same time from different places, or, instead, that the Apache were already there and the Navajo moved in and lived with them? Until you know which it is, you cannot determine exactly how to fix the sentence. There is no error in the “this is why” phrase.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the SAT, “this” cannot refer to a clause.</p>
<p>Oh yes… and the “they” is ambiguous–does refer to the Apache or the Navajo? We know from context, but from mechanics–yuck!</p>
<p>@silverturtle
The first clause is the explanation of the second clause. In sentences such as this, the semi-colon does a better job than an “and.” Now I admit this is rather a refined point, but, in my opinion, this is why the semi-colon was invented. : )</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When “they” is the subject of an independent clause, the SAT generally finds it unambiguous when the antecedent is the subject of the previous clause. That is the case here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not familiar with the historical background of the semicolon, but its uses today are broader than you describe: They are not merely explanatory. Your preference for the semicolon here is a stylistic opinion; there is nothing wrong with conjunctive coordination in this context.</p>