Grammar for Real People, Part 4-3: Clarity Rule 3: Heavy Complements · 8:47pm Mar 3rd, 2016
Part 1: Magic and Science
Part 2: Sentences, Phrases, and Clauses
Part 3: Phrase Functions and Parse
Part 4-1: Modifier Confusion
Part 4-2: Specifier Logic
Part 4-3: You Are Here!
Part 4-4: Positive/Negative Unity (The Truth Behind “Double-Negatives")
Part 4-5: Scripts and Sleepy Phrases (The Truth Behind “Passive Voice”)
Part 4-6: Script Details (Coming Soon)
TL;DR at the bottom, as always. Not that you need it for this one.
Rule 3: Heavy Complements
(Official name: Complement-Heavy Principle)
This one's really easy: If a sentence contains a really long phrase function (four or more words for specifiers, usually, and more than two for pre-subject modifiers), don't put it before the head. Make sure it comes either inside or after the complement phrase. For obvious reasons, this is one of the rules behind run-on sentences being vaguely frowned upon (the other one we'll get to later). Functionally, if you take too long setting up what we're talking about before you actually start saying something about it, we'll start to get confused and forget what's going on by the time things get moving again.
Some examples:
With such a cruel and harsh world as this one we find ourselves in, of course this happened.
The fact that you don't know what I mean proves it.
Obviously, with longer sentences, getting to the point quickly is very important. The head word is the point, so don't leave it hanging on the end of a monster phrase.
There are all sorts of finicky prescriptions for the maximum lengths of specific functions, but you don't need them.
TL;DR
Don't put big phrases at the beginning of the sentence, before the head.
But I like the bad example sentence here!
It's a fairly common construction for when you want to emphasize the complement. At least, that's my interpretation.
Then again, maybe my resistance to this idea means that I'm part of the problem.
3791153 Yeah, emphasis isn't a good enough reason. The sentence is inherently unclear, and just feels unbalanced. Tbh, I can't think of any reason a complement would need to be emphasized specifically, but if there were, I'm sure there would be better ways to do it.
Do you have any examples?
3791239
I was probably thinking of dialog and how some people talk when trying to give context for what the head of the sentence means.
Example: In order to revive their friend, storm the castle, and rescue Princess Buttercup, Inigo decided he would need a miracle. Accordingly, he sought Miracle Max.
The sentence wouldn't have the same impact, I feel, if the head came before the phrase "in order to".
Come to think of it, I don't think it's uncommon to see the "in order to" construction at the beginning of a sentence.
3791283 You're right about that sentence, but I don't know if I'm sure about why that is. It's either because that big modifier is actually a recursion with smaller modifiers (separated by commas), so none of them are really big enough to warrant moving (probably not), or because something weird is actually happening with the phrase functions. That big "modifier" might actually be a shunted complement, but don't quote me on that. I'll do some more digging, see what I can learn.
I actually have a grammar exam to take later today, so I'll be studying anyway.
3791601
Ugh. Count on me to find the weird edge case by accident every frikken time.
Good luck on your exam!
3792459 Nah, this sort of thing is actually pretty common. I think it'll need its own post later on.
3792558
Well ok then.
Glad to provide you with more material?