"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 contention to each of these opposite parties," it is unpleasantly doubtful whether the writer means (1) state or (2) parties to be emphatic.
If (1), "As for the state, these two parties, under the pretence of serving it, converted it into a prize for their contention." If (2), write, "Though served in profession, the state was in reality converted into a prize for their contention by these two parties." In (1) parties is subordinated, in (2) state.
Sometimes the addition of some intensifying word serves to emphasize. Thus, instead of "To effect this they used all devices," we can write "To effect this they used every conceivable device." So, if we want to emphasize fidelity in "The business will task your skill and fidelity," we can write "Not only your skill but also your fidelity." This, however, sometimes leads to exaggerations. See (2).
Sometimes antithesis gives emphasis, as in "You do not know this, but you shall know it." Where antithesis cannot be used, the emphasis must be expressed by turning the sentence, as "I will make you know it," or by some addition, as "You shall hereafter know it."
*19. Words should be as near as possible to the words with which they are grammatically connected.* See Paragraphs 20 to 29. For exceptions see 30.
*20. Adverbs should be placed next to the words they are intended to affect.* When unemphatic, adverbs come between the subject and the verb, or, if the tense is compound, between the parts of the compound tense: "He quickly left the room;" "He has quickly left the room;" but, when emphatic, after the verb: "He left, or has left, the room quickly."10 When such a sentence as the latter is followed by a present participle, there arises ambiguity. "I told him to go slowly, but he left the room quickly, dropping the purse on the floor." Does quickly here modify left or dropping? The remedy11 is, to give the adverb its unemphatic place, "He quickly left the room, dropping &c.," or else to avoid the participle, thus: "He quickly dropped the purse and left the room," or "He dropped the purse and quickly left the room."
*21. "Only" requires careful use. The strict12 rule is, that "only" should be placed before the word affected by it.*
The following is ambiguous:
"The heavens are not open to the faithful only at intervals."
The best rule is to avoid placing "only" between two emphatic words, and to avoid using "only" where "alone" can be used instead.
In strictness perhaps the three following sentences:
(1) He only beat three,
(2) He beat only three,
(3) He beat three only, ought to be explained, severally, thus:
(1) He did no more than beat, did not kill, three.
(2) He beat no more than three.
(3) He beat three, and that was all he did. (Here only modifies the whole of the sentence and depreciates the action.)
But the best authors sometimes transpose the word. "He only lived" ought to mean "he did not die or make any great sacrifice;" but "He only lived but till he was a man" (Macbeth, v. 8. 40) means "He lived only till he was a man." Compare also, "Who only hath immortality."
Only at the beginning of a statement = but. "I don't like to importune you, only I know you'll forgive me." Before an imperative it diminishes the favour asked: "Only listen to me." This use of only is mostly confined
Sometimes the emphatic Adverb comes at the beginning, and causes the transposition of an Auxiliary Verb, "
Of course punctuation will remove the ambiguity; but it is better to express oneself clearly, as far as possible, independently of punctuation.
Professor Bain.
