Oct 04, 2006 17:07
I have been misleading in the past, criticizing all "it was" and "there are" constructions as weak. The truth is, naturally, that these have their own strengths. Using a lot of them weakens them and a lot of any "be" verbs is weak and boring.
But if you want to emphasize a certain part of the sentence or you simply can think of no better way to state something, this is the way to go.
Skipping all the grammatical nuances that go with it, the "there construction" emphasizes what immediately follows the "there." Ex. There's a fly in my soup. The voice naturally goes up at "fly" and descends from there. So if you have something to stress there, use it. Contrast that with the adverb "there" where you are pointing out a particular something. Ex. There's that fly in my soup. Apparently, this fly goes into soup a lot.
The cleft sentences adds an "it was" or whichever introduction fits the sentence. Again, whatever immediately follows this is emphasized and what gets the most attention. Ex. It was Mary who wrecked her motorcycle in Phoenix.
vs
It was her motorcycle that Mary wrecked in Phoenix.
vs
It was in Phoenix that Mary wrecked her motorcycle.
Listening to how you say the above really helps.
word choice,
sentences,
syntax,
diction