Kitabı oku: «How to Write Clearly: Rules and Exercises on English Composition», sayfa 2

Under this head may come the forcible use of Noun for Adjective: "This fortress is weakness itself."

An excess of this use is lengthy and pedantically bombastic, e.g., the following paraphrase for "in every British colony:"—"under Indian palm-groves, amid Australian gum-trees, in the shadow of African mimosas, and beneath Canadian pines."

*13. Use Metaphor instead of literal statement.*

"The ship ploughs the sea" is clearer than "the ship cleaves the sea," and shorter than "the ship cleaves the sea as a plough cleaves the land."

Of course there are some subjects for which Metaphor should not be used. See (14 a) and (14 b).

*14. Do not confuse Metaphor.*

"In a moment the thunderbolt was upon them, deluging their country with invaders."

The following is attributed to Sir Boyle Roche: "Mr. Speaker, I smell a rat, I see him brewing in the air; but, mark me, I shall yet nip him in the bud."

Some words, once metaphorical, have ceased to be so regarded. Hence many good writers say "under these circumstances" instead of "in these circumstances."

An excessive regard for disused metaphor savours of pedantry: disregard is inelegant. Write, not, "unparalleled complications," but "unprecedented complications;" and "he threw light on obscurities," instead of "he unravelled obscurities."

*14 a. Do not introduce literal statement immediately after Metaphor.*

"He was the father of Chemistry, and brother to the Earl of Cork."

 
"He was a very thunderbolt of war,
And was lieutenant to the Earl of Mar."
 

*14 b. Do not use poetic metaphor to illustrate a prosaic subject.* Thus, we may say "a poet soars," or even, though rarely, "a nation soars to greatness," but you could not say "Consols soared to 94-1/2." Even commonplace subjects may be illustrated by metaphor: for it is a metaphor, and quite unobjectionable, to say "Consols mounted, or jumped to 94-1/2." But commonplace subjects must be illustrated by metaphor that is commonplace.

ORDER OF WORDS IN A SENTENCE

*15. Emphatic words must stand in emphatic positions; i.e. for the most part, at the beginning or at the end of the sentence.* This rule occasionally supersedes the common rules about position. Thus, the place for an adverb, as a rule, should be between the subject and verb: "He quickly left the room;" but if quickly is to be emphatic, it must come at the beginning or end, as in "I told him to leave the room slowly, but he left quickly."

Adjectives, in clauses beginning with "if" and "though," often come at the beginning for emphasis: "Insolent though he was, he was silenced at last."

*15 a. Unemphatic words must, as a rule, be kept from the end of the sentence.* It is a common fault to break this rule by placing a short and unemphatic predicate at the end of a long sentence.

"To know some Latin, even if it be nothing but a few Latin roots, is useful." Write, "It is useful, &c."

So "the evidence proves how kind to his inferiors he is."

Often, where an adjective or auxiliary verb comes at the end, the addition of an emphatic adverb justifies the position, e.g. above, "is very useful," "he has invariably been."

A short "chippy" ending, even though emphatic, is to be avoided. It is abrupt and unrhythmical, e.g. "The soldier, transfixed with the spear, writhed." We want a longer ending, "fell writhing to the ground," or, "writhed in the agonies of death." A "chippy" ending is common in bad construing from Virgil.

*Exceptions.*—Prepositions and pronouns attached to emphatic words need not be moved from the end; e.g. "He does no harm that I hear of." "Bear witness how I loved him."

*N.B. In all styles, especially in letter-writing, a final emphasis must not be so frequent as to become obtrusive and monotonous.*

*15 b. An interrogation sometimes gives emphasis.* "No one can doubt that the prisoner, had he been really guilty, would have shown some signs of remorse," is not so emphatic as "Who can doubt, Is it possible to doubt, &c.?"

Contrast "No one ever names Wentworth without thinking of &c." with "But Wentworth,—who ever names him without thinking of those harsh dark features, ennobled by their expression into more than the majesty of an antique Jupiter?"

*16. The subject, if unusually emphatic, should often be removed from the beginning of the sentence.* The beginning of the sentence is an emphatic position, though mostly not so emphatic as the end. Therefore the principal subject of a sentence, being emphatic, and being wanted early in the sentence to tell us what the sentence is about, comes as a rule, at or near the beginning: "Thomas built this house."

Hence, since the beginning is the usual place for the subject, if we want to emphasize "Thomas" unusually, we must remove "Thomas" from the beginning: "This house was built by Thomas," or "It was Thomas that built this house."

Thus, the emphasis on "conqueror" is not quite so strong in "A mere conqueror ought not to obtain from us the reverence that is due to the great benefactors of mankind," as in "We ought not to bestow the reverence that is due to the great benefactors of mankind, upon a mere conqueror." Considerable, but less emphasis and greater smoothness (19) will be obtained by writing the sentence thus: "We ought not to bestow upon a mere conqueror &c."

Where the same subject stands first in several consecutive sentences, it rises in emphasis, and need not be removed from the beginning, even though unusual emphasis be required:

"The captain was the life and soul of the expedition. He first pointed out the possibility of advancing; he warned them of the approaching scarcity of provisions; he showed how they might replenish their exhausted stock &c."

*17. The object is sometimes placed before the verb for emphasis.* This is most common in antithesis. "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" "Some he imprisoned, others he put to death."

Even where there is no antithesis the inversion is not uncommon:

"Military courage, the boast of the sottish German, of the frivolous and prating Frenchman, of the romantic and arrogant Spaniard, he neither possesses nor values."

This inversion sometimes creates ambiguity in poetry, e.g. "The son the father slew," and must be sparingly used in prose.

Sometimes the position of a word may be considered appropriate by some, and inappropriate by others, according to different interpretations of the sentence. Take as an example, "Early in the morning the nobles and gentlemen who attended on the king assembled in the great hall of the castle; and here they began to talk of what a dreadful storm it had been the night before. But Macbeth could scarcely understand what they said, for he was thinking of something worse." The last sentence has been amended by Professor Bain into "What they said, Macbeth could scarcely understand." But there appears to be an antithesis between the guiltless nobles who can think about the weather, and the guilty Macbeth who cannot. Hence, "what they said" ought not, and "Macbeth" ought, to be emphasized: and therefore "Macbeth" ought to be retained at the beginning of the sentence.

The same author alters, "The praise of judgment Virgil has justly contested with him, but his invention remains yet unrivalled," into "Virgil has justly contested with him the praise of judgment, but no one has yet rivalled his invention"—an alteration which does not seem to emphasize sufficiently the antithesis between what had been 'contested,' on the one hand, and what remained as yet 'unrivalled' on the other.

More judiciously Professor Bain alters, "He that tells a lie is not sensible how great a task he undertakes; for he must be forced to invent twenty more to maintain one," into "for, to maintain one, he must invent twenty more," putting the emphatic words in their emphatic place, at the end.

*18. Where several words are emphatic, make it clear which is the most emphatic.* Thus, in "The state was made, under the pretence of serving it, in reality the prize of their contention to each of these opposite parties," it is unpleasantly doubtful whether the writer means (1) state or (2) parties to be emphatic.

If (1), "As for the state, these two parties, under the pretence of serving it, converted it into a prize for their contention." If (2), write, "Though served in profession, the state was in reality converted into a prize for their contention by these two parties." In (1) parties is subordinated, in (2) state.

Sometimes the addition of some intensifying word serves to emphasize. Thus, instead of "To effect this they used all devices," we can write "To effect this they used every conceivable device." So, if we want to emphasize fidelity in "The business will task your skill and fidelity," we can write "Not only your skill but also your fidelity." This, however, sometimes leads to exaggerations. See (2).

Sometimes antithesis gives emphasis, as in "You do not know this, but you shall know it." Where antithesis cannot be used, the emphasis must be expressed by turning the sentence, as "I will make you know it," or by some addition, as "You shall hereafter know it."

*19. Words should be as near as possible to the words with which they are grammatically connected.* See Paragraphs 20 to 29. For exceptions see 30.

*20. Adverbs should be placed next to the words they are intended to affect.* When unemphatic, adverbs come between the subject and the verb, or, if the tense is compound, between the parts of the compound tense: "He quickly left the room;" "He has quickly left the room;" but, when emphatic, after the verb: "He left, or has left, the room quickly."¹⁰ When such a sentence as the latter is followed by a present participle, there arises ambiguity. "I told him to go slowly, but he left the room quickly, dropping the purse on the floor." Does quickly here modify left or dropping? The remedy¹¹ is, to give the adverb its unemphatic place, "He quickly left the room, dropping &c.," or else to avoid the participle, thus: "He quickly dropped the purse and left the room," or "He dropped the purse and quickly left the room."

*21. "Only" requires careful use. The strict¹² rule is, that "only" should be placed before the word affected by it.*

The following is ambiguous:

"The heavens are not open to the faithful only at intervals."

The best rule is to avoid placing "only" between two emphatic words, and to avoid using "only" where "alone" can be used instead.

In strictness perhaps the three following sentences:

(1) He only beat three,

(2) He beat only three,

(3) He beat three only, ought to be explained, severally, thus:

(1) He did no more than beat, did not kill, three.

(2) He beat no more than three.

(3) He beat three, and that was all he did. (Here only modifies the whole of the sentence and depreciates the action.)

But the best authors sometimes transpose the word. "He only lived" ought to mean "he did not die or make any great sacrifice;" but "He only lived but till he was a man" (Macbeth, v. 8. 40) means "He lived only till he was a man." Compare also, "Who only hath immortality."

Only at the beginning of a statement = but. "I don't like to importune you, only I know you'll forgive me." Before an imperative it diminishes the favour asked: "Only listen to me." This use of only is mostly confined to letters.

Very often, only at the beginning of a sentence is used for alone: "Only ten came," "Only Cæsar approved." Alone is less ambiguous. The ambiguity of only is illustrated by such a sentence as, "Don't hesitate to bring a few friends of yours to shoot on my estate at any time. Only five (fifteen) came yesterday," which might mean, "I don't mind a few; only don't bring so many as fifteen;" or else "Don't hesitate to bring a few more; no more than five came yesterday." In conversation, ambiguity is prevented by emphasis; but in a letter, only thus used might cause unfortunate mistakes. Write "Yesterday only five came," if you mean "no more than five."

*22. When "not only" precedes "but also," see that each is followed by the same part of speech.*

"He not only gave me advice but also help" is wrong. Write "He gave me, not only advice, but also help." On the other hand, "He not only gave me a grammar, but also lent me a dictionary," is right. Take an instance. "He spoke not only forcibly but also tastefully (adverbs), and this too, not only before a small audience, but also in (prepositions) a large public meeting, and his speeches were not only successful, but also (adjective) worthy of success."

*23. "At least," "always," and other adverbial adjuncts, sometimes produce ambiguity.*

"I think you will find my Latin exercise, at all events, as good as my cousin's." Does this mean (1) "my Latin exercise, though not perhaps my other exercises;" or (2), "Though not very good, yet, at all events, as good as my cousin's"? Write for (1), "My Latin exercise, at all events, you will find &c." and for (2), "I think you will find my Latin exercise as good as my cousin's, at all events."

The remedy is to avoid placing "at all events" between two emphatic words.

As an example of the misplacing of an adverbial adjunct, take "From abroad he received most favourable reports, but in the City he heard that a panic had broken out on the Exchange, and that the funds were fast falling." This ought to mean that the "hearing," and not (as is intended) that the "breaking out of the panic," took place in the City.

In practice, an adverb is often used to qualify a remote word, where the latter is more emphatic than any nearer word. This is very common when the Adverbial Adjunct is placed in an emphatic position at the beginning of the sentence: "On this very spot our guide declared that Claverhouse had fallen."

*24. Nouns should be placed near the nouns that they define.* In the very common sentence "The death is announced of Mr. John Smith, an author whose works &c.," the transposition is probably made from a feeling that, if we write "The death of Mr. John Smith is announced," we shall be obliged to begin a new sentence, "He was an author whose works &c." But the difficulty can be removed by writing "We regret to announce, or, we are informed of, the death of Mr. John Smith, an author, &c."

*25. Pronouns should follow the nouns to which they refer without the intervention of another noun.* Avoid, "John Smith, the son of Thomas Smith, who gave me this book," unless Thomas Smith is the antecedent of who. Avoid also "John supplied Thomas with money: he (John) was very well off."

When, however, one of two preceding nouns is decidedly superior to the other in emphasis, the more emphatic may be presumed to be the noun referred to by the pronoun, even though the noun of inferior emphasis intervenes. Thus: "At this moment the colonel came up, and took the place of the wounded general. He gave orders to halt." Here he would naturally refer to colonel, though general intervenes. A conjunction will often show that a pronoun refers to the subject of the preceding sentence, and not to another intervening noun. "The sentinel at once took aim at the approaching soldier, and fired. He then retreated to give the alarm."

It is better to adhere, in most cases, to Rule 25, which may be called (Bain) the Rule of Proximity. The Rule of Emphasis, of which an instance was given in the last paragraph, is sometimes misleading. A distinction might be drawn by punctuating thus:

"David the father of Solomon, who slew Goliath." "David, the father of Solomon who built the Temple." But the propriety of omitting a comma in each case is questionable, and it is better to write so as not to be at the mercy of commas.

*26. Clauses that are grammatically connected should be kept as close together as possible.* (But see 55.) The introduction of parentheses violating this rule often produced serious ambiguity. Thus, in the following: "The result of these observations appears to be in opposition to the view now generally received in this country, that in muscular effort the substance of the muscle itself undergoes disintegration." Here it is difficult to tell whether the theory of "disintegration" is (1) "the result," or, as the absence of a comma after "be" would indicate, (2) "in opposition to the result of these observations." If (1) is intended, add "and to prove" after "country;" if (2), insert "which is" after "country."

There is an excessive complication in the following:—"It cannot, at all events, if the consideration demanded by a subject of such importance from any one professing to be a philosopher, be given, be denied that &c."

Where a speaker feels that his hearers have forgotten the connection of the beginning of the sentence, he should repeat what he has said; e.g. after the long parenthesis in the last sentence he should recommence, "it cannot, I say, be denied." In writing, however, this licence must be sparingly used.

A short parenthesis, or modifying clause, will not interfere with clearness, especially if antithesis he used, so as to show the connection between the different parts of the sentence, e.g. "A modern newspaper statement, though probably true, would be laughed at if quoted in a book as testimony; but the letter of a court gossip is thought good historical evidence if written some centuries ago." Here, to place "though probably true" at the beginning of the sentence would not add clearness, and would impair the emphasis of the contrast between "a modern newspaper statement" and "the letter of a court gossip."

*27. In conditional sentences, the antecedent clauses must be kept distinct from the consequent clauses.*—There is ambiguity in "The lesson intended to be taught by these manoeuvres will be lost, if the plan of operations is laid down too definitely beforehand, and the affair degenerates into a mere review." Begin, in any case, with the antecedent, "If the plan," &c. Next write, according to the meaning: (1) "If the plan is laid down, and the affair degenerates &c., then the lesson will be lost;" or (2) " … then the lesson … will be lost, and the affair degenerates into a mere review."

*28. Dependent clauses preceded by "that" should be kept distinct from those that are independent.*

Take as an example:

(1) "He replied that he wished to help them, and intended to make preparations accordingly."

This ought not to be used (though it sometimes is, for shortness) to mean:

(2) "He replied …, and he intended."

In (1), "intended," having no subject, must be supposed to be connected with the nearest preceding verb, in the same mood and tense, that has a subject, i.e. "wished." It follows that (1) is a condensation of:

(3) "He replied that he wished …, and that he intended."

(2), though theoretically free from ambiguity, is practically ambiguous, owing to a loose habit of repeating the subject unnecessarily. It would be better to insert a conjunctional word or a full stop between the two statements. Thus:

(4) "He replied that he wished to help them, and indeed he intended," &c., or "He replied, &c. He intended, &c."

Where there is any danger of ambiguity, use (3) or (4) in preference to (1) or (2).

*29. When there are several infinitives, those that are dependent on the same word must be kept distinct from those that are not.*

"He said that he wished to take his friend with him to visit the capital and to study medicine." Here it is doubtful whether the meaning is—

"He said that he wished to take his friend with him,

(1) and also to visit the capital and study medicine," or

(2) "that his friend might visit the capital and might also study medicine," or

(3) "on a visit to the capital, and that he also wished to study medicine."

From the three different versions it will be perceived that this ambiguity must be met (a) by using "that" for "to," which allows us to repeat an auxiliary verb [e.g. "might" in (2)], and (b) by inserting conjunctions. As to insertions of conjunctions, see (37).

"In order to," and "for the purpose of," can be used to distinguish (wherever there is any ambiguity) between an infinitive that expresses a purpose, and an infinitive that does not, e.g. "He told his servant to call upon his friend, to (in order to) give him information about the trains, and not to leave him till he started."

*30. The principle of suspense.* Write your sentence in such a way that, until he has come to the full stop, the reader may feel the sentence to be incomplete. In other words, keep your reader in suspense. Suspense is caused (1) by placing the "if-clause" first, and not last, in a conditional sentence; (2) by placing participles before the words they qualify; (3) by using suspensive conjunctions, e.g. not only, either, partly, on the one hand, in the first place, &c.

The following is an example of an unsuspended sentence. The sense draggles, and it is difficult to keep up one's attention.

"Mr. Pym was looked upon as the man of greatest experience in parliaments, | where he had served very long, | and was always a man of business, | being an officer in the Exchequer, | and of a good reputation generally, | though known to be inclined to the Puritan party; yet not of those furious resolutions (Mod. Eng. so furiously resolved) against the Church as the other leading men were, | and wholly devoted to the Earl of Bedford,—who had nothing of that spirit."

The foregoing sentence might have ended at any one of the eight points marked above. When suspended it becomes:—

"Mr. Pym, owing to his long service in Parliament in the Exchequer, was esteemed above all others for his Parliamentary experience and for his knowledge of business. He had also a good reputation generally; for, though openly favouring the Puritan party, he was closely devoted to the Earl of Bedford, and, like the Earl, had none of the fanatical spirit manifested against the Church by the other leading men."

*30 a. It is a violation of the principle of Suspense to introduce unexpectedly, at the end of a long sentence, some short and unemphatic clause beginning with (a) " … not" or (b) " … which."*

(a) "This reform has already been highly beneficial to all classes of our countrymen, and will, I am persuaded, encourage among us industry, self-dependence, and frugality, and not, as some say, wastefulness."

Write "not, as some say, wastefulness, but industry, self-dependence, and frugality."

(b) "After a long and tedious journey, the last part of which was a little dangerous owing to the state of the roads, we arrived safely at York, which is a fine old town."

*Exception.*—When the short final clause is intended to be unexpectedly unemphatic, it comes in appropriately, with something of the sting of an epigram. See (42). Thus:

"The old miser said that he should have been delighted to give the poor fellow a shilling, but most unfortunately he had left his purse at home—a habit of his."

Suspense naturally throws increased emphasis on the words for which we are waiting, i.e. on the end of the sentence. It has been pointed out above that *a monotony of final emphasis is objectionable, especially in letter writing and conversation*.

*31. Suspense must not be excessive.* Excess of suspense is a common fault in boys translating from Latin. "Themistocles, having secured the safety of Greece, the Persian fleet being now destroyed, when he had unsuccessfully attempted to persuade the Greeks to break down the bridge across the Hellespont, hearing that Xerxes was in full flight, and thinking that it might be profitable to secure the friendship of the king, wrote as follows to him." The more English idiom is: "When Themistocles had secured the safety of Greece by the destruction of the Persian fleet, he made an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the Greeks to break down the bridge across the Hellespont. Soon afterwards, hearing &c."

A long suspense that would be intolerable in prose is tolerable in the introduction to a poem. See the long interval at the beginning of Paradise Lost between "Of man's first disobedience" and "Sing, heavenly Muse." Compare also the beginning of Paradise Lost, Book II.:

 
"High on a throne of royal state, which far
Outshone the wealth of Ormuz and of Ind,
Or where the gorgeous East with richest hand
Showers on her kings barbaric pearl and gold—
Satan exalted sat."
 

with the opening of Keats' Hyperion:

 
"Deep in the shady sadness of a vale,
Far sunken from the healthy breath of morn,
Far from the fiery noon and eve's one star—
Sat grey-haired Saturn, quiet as a stone."
 

*32. In a long conditional sentence put the "if-clause," antecedent, or protasis, first.*

Everyone will see the flatness of "Revenge thy father's most unnatural murder, if thou didst ever love him," as compared with the suspense that forces an expression of agony from Hamlet in—

"Ghost. If thou didst ever thy dear father love— Hamlet. O, God! Ghost. Revenge his foul and most unnatural murder."

The effect is sometimes almost ludicrous when the consequent is long and complicated, and when it precedes the antecedent or "if-clause." "I should be delighted to introduce you to my friends, and to show you the objects of interest in our city, and the beautiful scenery in the neighbourhood, if you were here." Where the "if-clause" comes last, it ought to be very emphatic: "if you were only here."

The introduction of a clause with "if" or "though" in the middle of a sentence may often cause ambiguity, especially when a great part of the sentence depends on "that:" "His enemies answered that, for the sake of preserving the public peace, they would keep quiet for the present, though he declared that cowardice was the motive of the delay, and that for this reason they would put off the trial to a more convenient season." See (27).

*33. Suspense¹³ is gained by placing a Participle or Adjective that qualifies the Subject, before the Subject.*

"Deserted by his friends, he was forced to have recourse to those that had been his enemies." Here, if we write, "He, deserted by his friends, was forced &c.," he is unduly emphasized; and if we write, "He was forced to have recourse to his enemies, having been deserted by his friends," the effect is very flat.

Of course we might sometimes write "He was deserted and forced &c." But this cannot be done where the "desertion" is to be not stated but implied.

Often, when a participle qualifying the subject is introduced late in the sentence, it causes positive ambiguity: "With this small force the general determined to attack the foe, flushed with recent victory and rendered negligent by success."

An excessive use of the suspensive participle is French and objectionable: e.g. "Careless by nature, and too much engaged with business to think of the morrow, spoiled by a long-established liberty and a fabulous prosperity, having for many generations forgotten the scourge of war, we allow ourselves to drift on without taking heed of the signs of the times." The remedy is to convert the participle into a verb depending on a conjunction: "Because we are by nature careless, &c.;" or to convert the participle into a verb co-ordinate with the principal verb, e.g. "We are by nature careless, &c., and therefore we allow ourselves, &c."

*34. Suspensive Conjunctions, e.g. "either," "not only," "on the one hand," add clearness.*—Take the following sentence:—"You must take this extremely perilous course, in which success is uncertain, and failure disgraceful, as well as ruinous, or else the liberty of your country is endangered." Here, the meaning is liable to be misunderstood, till the reader has gone half through the sentence. Write "Either you must," &c., and the reader is, from the first, prepared for an alternative. Other suspensive conjunctions or phrases are partly, for our part; in the first place; it is true; doubtless; of course; though; on the one hand.

*35. Repeat the Subject when the omission would cause ambiguity or obscurity.*—The omission is particularly likely to cause obscurity after a Relative standing as Subject:—

"He professes to be helping the nation, which in reality is suffering from his flattery, and (he? or it?) will not permit anyone else to give it advice."

The Relative should be repeated when it is the Subject of several Verbs. "All the pleasing illusions which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments that beautify and soften private society, are to be dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason."

*36. Repeat a Preposition after an intervening Conjunction, especially if a Verb and an Object also intervene.*

"He forgets the gratitude that he owes to those that helped all his companions when he was poor and uninfluential, and (to) John Smith in particular." Here, omit to, and the meaning may be "that helped all his companions, and John Smith in particular." The intervention of the verb and object, "helped" and "companions," causes this ambiguity.

*37. When there are several Verbs at some distance from a Conjunction on which they depend, repeat the Conjunction.*¹⁴

"When we look back upon the havoc that two hundred years have made in the ranks of our national authors—and, above all, (when) we refer their rapid disappearance to the quick succession of new competitors—we cannot help being dismayed at the prospect that lies before the writers of the present day."

Here omit "when," and we at once substitute a parenthetical statement for what is really a subordinate clause.

In reporting a speech or opinion, "that" must be continually repeated, to avoid the danger of confusing what the writer says with what others say.

"We might say that the Cæsars did not persecute the Christians; (that) they only punished men who were charged, rightly or wrongly, with burning Rome, and committing the foulest abominations in secret assemblies; and (that) the refusal to throw frankincense on the altar of Jupiter was not the crime, but only evidence of the crime." But see (6 b).

*37 a. Repeat Verbs after the conjunctions "than," "as," &c.*

"I think he likes me better than you;" i.e. either "than you like me," or "he likes you."