Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

there will not be that complete joining of the part thoughts which is necessary for Unity.

In the sentence

Take good care of your clothing and it will always look well, we have two ideas of equal value and properly expressed, therefore, by means of the compound sentence. But suppose

some one says

I reached the office late yesterday and I found the building in flames.

We see at once that these two ideas are not of equal importance, that one is subordinate to the other, and that they should be expressed so as to make that relation clear, asWhen I reached the office yesterday, I found the building in flames.

The law of Unity is most commonly violated, then, in these three ways:

(a) By including more than one complete thought in one sentence.

(b) By making a sentence of a part thought.

(c) By failing to indicate the true relationship between the various parts of a sentence; and especially by making a sentence compound when it should be complex, or vice versa.

EXERCISES

I. Correct the following sentences, and point out the error in each : 1. The lake lay before us, and it was smooth as a mirror. 2. The road wound away before us, and we followed it.

3. He chased him across the street. And pounded him.

4. I do not believe in your belief but I will follow you, my confidence is in your judgment.

5. Send George to me quickly, don't fail to see John to-morrow. Coherence. Coherence in a sentence means the relating of the different members of a sentence to each other in such

[ocr errors]

a way as to make the meaning perfectly clear. To begin with, any fault in grammar leads to Incoherence. Thus Coherence pertains to grammatical relations, such as: (a) The placing of modifiers.

(b) The reference of pronouns and participles.

(c) The selection of conjunctions.

(d) The grammatical form of expression selected for the

expression of similar ideas.

Let us take these up in order.

[ocr errors]

The Proper Placing of Modifiers. In "I should like a cold glass of water," the adjective "cold" makes incoherence; it should not modify "glass"; it should modify water." Our sentence should read, "I should like a glass of cold water," which is a coherent expression of our thoughts. A still more striking example is to be found in these two sentences:

I love only her,

I only love her,

in which the change in place of the modifier makes a complete change in meaning, and illustrates the care with which words must be placed.

Sometimes it is not only a word but a whole phrase or a clause that is placed out of its proper position. To illustrate:

John saw a huge snake this morning going to the store.

Going to the store " modifies "John" and should therefore stand as near as possible to John"; thus

[ocr errors]

Going to the store this morning, John saw a huge snake. Likewise in

[ocr errors]

He liked the books about boats and canoes that his father gave him, the clause "that his father gave him modifies "books and should therefore be placed immediately after it.

This

is an error in Coherence. In the placing of words, phrases, and clauses, our rule must be to place them as near as possible to the words they modify.

The Proper Reference of Pronouns and Participles. Misuse of the relative pronouns frequently leads to incoherence. Which, who, and that should never be indefinite in their reference. Which," in the following sentence, is distinctly indefinite in its reference

66

I recognized his honest face, which pleased me,

and, as a result, the statement can mean two very different things.

The personal pronouns must also be clear in their reference. In a sentence such as,

[ocr errors]

The books having been burned they were obliged to buy new ones, we are confused upon our first reading. "They" would seem to refer to books." But we know well enough that it refers to something understood, something outside the sentence," pupils," or " authorities," and that the sentence should read:

The books having been burned, the pupils were obliged to buy

new ones.

Almost equally easy is the misconstruction of the participle in sentences beginning with a participial phrase. We err often in closing our letters

Hoping to hear from you soon,

Sincerely yours.

"Hoping" here has nothing to modify and our construction is incoherent as a consequence. "I am" must be supplied. Again and more seriously, in the sentence,

Arriving at the top of the hill, the valley below could be seen in its every detail,

G

the participle" arriving " of course refers to some person or people, yet the word which it modifies is not directly stated. The place which such a word should occupy is held by "valley," but it would be absurd for "arriving" to modify that. The sentence, therefore, is incoherent and must be changed to

Arriving at the top of the hill, we could see the valley in its every detail.

Now "arriving" distinctly refers to "we," and thus the participial phrase is grammatically related to the rest of the sentence. See to it that your participles always modify the real subject of the sentence, and you will escape this pitfall. Otherwise you may add to the mirth of the world by such a sentence as

I saw the beautiful statue by MacMonnies entering the museum. Selection of the Proper Conjunctions. We have studied on pages 48-57 that conjunctions, whether coördinate or subordinate, indicate a relation between the part thoughts they are called upon to connect.

If the wrong conjunction is used in a compound or complex sentence, the meaning is blurred as a photograph is blurred by the wrong focus. For example:

or

I fed the fawn daily and it died,

He did his work satisfactorily but was promoted.

"But," in the latter case, is absurd. Doing work satisfactorily is not in contrast to promotion, but adds to it; consequently, the additive or copulative conjunction "and," not the adversative "but," is required.

Furthermore, conjunctions must be so placed as to bring out clearly the meaning of the writer.

Tom not only went to the office but also to the store

66

is incoherent because the first conjunction is misplaced, connecting "went " and "store" instead of office" and "store." It should be

Tom went not only to the office but also to the store.

[ocr errors]

Similar Constructions for Similar Ideas. Incoherence is frequently caused by the use of dissimilar construction for the expression of similar ideas. In taking notes it is well to keep to one form of expression in the different classes of topics; to enumerate John's qualities, for instance, as

(a) Honesty (noun)

(b) Good (adjective)
(c) Studious (adjective)

(d) Faithfulness (noun)

would be distinctly bad. So also in our sentence structure it is bad to use an infinitive phrase in parallel construction with a noun clause, as

He said to take our books and that they should be opened at page four.

"He" gave two directions, but these directions are stated in different forms. Both objects of the verb "said "should be stated in the infinitive or clausal form. Again, consider

This selection should be read slowly instead of your reading it this way.

Here we have a phrase set over against a clause. The sentence should read

This selection should be read slowly, not as you are reading it.

A notable instance of failure to preserve a like form for like thoughts is in the so-called "and who" construction, which most good writers avoid.

He was a man to love, and who will be missed

is clearly better when written

« ZurückWeiter »