LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

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

Скачать книгу