Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
blog.oup.com
Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
#2“Are the first two paragraphs a blockquote? If so, it’s odd to see the author describe themselves as acclaimed in the third person”
— yakshaving_jgt, reputable HN commenter
Re: Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
#3“Are the first two paragraphs a blockquote? If so, it’s odd to see the author describe themselves as acclaimed in the third person” — yakshaving_jgt, reputable HN commenter
They are styled as a block quotation, but only to set them off from the rest of the text. It appears that the editor added them as an overview to help the reader decide whether to continue and to more quickly grasp the overall point.
Re: Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
#4Am I missing something here or does the very first example break this article’s own point?
“It was nice of John and Mary to come and visit us the other day,” is 8 words before the verb come.
“For John and Mary to come and visit us the other day was nice,” is only five, focused solely on the subject with no additional information (how the author felt about their visit)
Yet personally the second one reads easier for me, so I guess that reinforces the point to me specifically? Although I agree it’s unusual.
Re: Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
#5Am I missing something here or does the very first example break this article’s own point? “It was nice of John and Mary to come and visit us the other day,” is 8 words before the verb come. “For John and Mary to come and visit us the other day was nice,” is only five, focused solely on the subject with no additional information (how the author felt about their visit) Yet personally the second one reads easier for me…
It’s not about the verb. It’s about the point. The “weight” of the parts. Here, the point was that it “was nice” that they came visit.
Re: Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
#6Am I missing something here or does the very first example break this article’s own point? “It was nice of John and Mary to come and visit us the other day,” is 8 words before the verb come. “For John and Mary to come and visit us the other day was nice,” is only five, focused solely on the subject with no additional information (how the author felt about their visit) Yet personally the second one reads easier for me…
The main verb in the sentence in both cases is "was". "come" is in a subclause, and it's that subclause that is the "weightier" part of the sentence that the author says should come later in the sentence.
Incidentally, the two sentences don't really say the same thing -- the first is saying John and Mary did something nice for the speaker, and the second is so weirdly phrased it's hard to figure out what it's intending to say but it's hard to interpret it as having the same meaning as the first. It would need to end "...was nice of them" to be that, I think.
Re: Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
#7Am I missing something here or does the very first example break this article’s own point? “It was nice of John and Mary to come and visit us the other day,” is 8 words before the verb come. “For John and Mary to come and visit us the other day was nice,” is only five, focused solely on the subject with no additional information (how the author felt about their visit) Yet personally the second one reads easier for me…
Why is the clunky construct “to come and visit” even used?
“It was nice of John and Mary to visit us the other day”
Re: Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
#8In the comparison of these two, they say the former is more natural:
> The trouble began suddenly on the thirty-first of October 1998.
> The trouble began on the thirty-first of October 1998 suddenly.
sure, but natural isn't what a writer who is trying to persuade is going for. 'suddenly' in this example has a polarized value. as an adverb observation it inserts the writer into the story, which either has tremendous meaning, or literally none at all. I would even say that the second example has a more masculine voice than the first because the "trouble began suddenly" usage is careless, non-commital, and low risk.
A lot of what makes reading satisfying is pushing values onto the readers mental stack and popping them off in surprising ways, not unlike comedy setups or waiting for the drop. while I can be a bit turgid, I would have written this as:
"The trouble began on the thirty-first of October 1998, suddenly."
Adding the comma gives you suspense to resolve by popping it off with an example of suddenness. e.g.
"The doctors said it was a possible side effect of the seizure medication, but it was as though a resevoir of something stable and forgotten had breached. Victims in collisions with head injuries often have behavioural changes, they said, but he was not a victim, or even a perpetrator. what is the opposite, a protagonist? 'shopping cart jousting' was the line in his file adjacent to a generic billing code reserved for cases of decidedly other. Not a victim, but perhaps, a Champion."
the comma pushes us down into the story, and the whole stack can be popped by the champion punchline.
Re: Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
#9“Are the first two paragraphs a blockquote? If so, it’s odd to see the author describe themselves as acclaimed in the third person” — yakshaving_jgt, reputable HN commenter
Out of curiosity… why does the oddness depend on whether the paragraphs are blockquote? It would be less odd without the blockquote mark on the left? Are you certain that someone else didn’t write that sentence? And what’s odd about it? Even if he did write it, isn’t it fairly standard practice to for people to write their own introductions & accolades in third person? I’ve seen it a lot, and the point, for better or worse, is to make it sound like someone else wrote it. In many cases authors of books, articles, talks, etc. are expected to provide their own introduction, and it’s kinder than expecting someone else to to know your history or say nice things about you.
Re: Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)
#10In the comparison of these two, they say the former is more natural: > The trouble began suddenly on the thirty-first of October 1998. > The trouble began on the thirty-first of October 1998 suddenly. sure, but natural isn't what a writer who is trying to persuade is going for. 'suddenly' in this example has a polarized value. as an adverb observation it inserts the writer into the story, which either has tremendous…
> I would even say that the second example has a more masculine voice
You could also make the argument that the second is more feminine, as it is non-committal and low-risk, something indicative of “hedging” that women often do.