I remember my teacher, Miss Thistlethwaite, she of the old school of English, who said of subordinate clauses they should be so assembled as to flow in understanding as a river, such as the mightily Frazer in British Columbia, forming a coherency easily understood by the reader, no matter how well versed he or she was in reading comprehension (it is to the writer to dictate ease of word assemblage so a reader can easily ascertain meaning was her dictum) and not go as one would see a sack of cats being dragged to a river all awry seeming to go in several directions bound only by the sentence itself being a sentence; to Miss Thistlethwaite a sentence can have as many subordinate clauses as necessary as long as – as explained prior – they hold a consistency in passage throughout the sentence not leaving the reader, whoever he or she may be, unable to gather the meaning of each separate subordinate clause as to its context within the sentence and not, as she once said to me when taking her class at the high school in which she taught, verbal diarrhea as is wont by so many writers intent in putting all they wish to say in one sentence thereby necessitating subordinate clauses spread hither and yon.MichaelR
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra