Grammarian Peeves
Okay, the Writing Assistant in me emerges as I finish off this essay:
Do not stuff several dependent clauses between the subject and predicate if both subject and predicate will form a very short complete independent clause.
It is fucking annoying, because it is difficult to parse. It is also annoying, because it is a form of rhetoric that delays the official message until the end. It would be cool in a speech, but as an essay, this doesn't fucking work, and it's frying my brain.
Example:
"For every rationalist metaphysician, from Plato to the last disciples of Hegel or Marx, this abandonment of of the notion of a final harmony in which all riddles are solved, all contraditions reconciled, is a piece of crude empiricism, abdication before brute facts, intolerable bankruptcy of reason before things as they are, failure to explain and to justify, to reduce everything to a system, which 'reason' indignantly rejects."
Let's parse this as an exercise.
"[For every rationalist metaphysician], [from Plato to the last disciples of (Hegel) |or| (Marx),] {this abandonment of the notion of a final harmony in which (all riddles are solved), (all contraditions reconciled,)} {is a piece of [crude empiricism,] [abdication before brute facts,] [intolerable bankruptcy of reason (before things as they are),] [failure (to explain) |and| (to justify,)] to reduce everything to a system}, {which 'reason' indignantly rejects.}"
Anything in {}s are what we're looking at. The sentence, minus everything in []s and ()s, is:
"This abandonment of the notion of a final harmony ... is a piece of crude empiricism ... which 'reason' indignantly rejects."
SEE HOW MUCH EASIER THAT IS TO READ?
Five more pages to go. I can do this.
Do not stuff several dependent clauses between the subject and predicate if both subject and predicate will form a very short complete independent clause.
It is fucking annoying, because it is difficult to parse. It is also annoying, because it is a form of rhetoric that delays the official message until the end. It would be cool in a speech, but as an essay, this doesn't fucking work, and it's frying my brain.
Example:
"For every rationalist metaphysician, from Plato to the last disciples of Hegel or Marx, this abandonment of of the notion of a final harmony in which all riddles are solved, all contraditions reconciled, is a piece of crude empiricism, abdication before brute facts, intolerable bankruptcy of reason before things as they are, failure to explain and to justify, to reduce everything to a system, which 'reason' indignantly rejects."
Let's parse this as an exercise.
"[For every rationalist metaphysician], [from Plato to the last disciples of (Hegel) |or| (Marx),] {this abandonment of the notion of a final harmony in which (all riddles are solved), (all contraditions reconciled,)} {is a piece of [crude empiricism,] [abdication before brute facts,] [intolerable bankruptcy of reason (before things as they are),] [failure (to explain) |and| (to justify,)] to reduce everything to a system}, {which 'reason' indignantly rejects.}"
Anything in {}s are what we're looking at. The sentence, minus everything in []s and ()s, is:
"This abandonment of the notion of a final harmony ... is a piece of crude empiricism ... which 'reason' indignantly rejects."
SEE HOW MUCH EASIER THAT IS TO READ?
Five more pages to go. I can do this.