The Mighty Word's Guide to Good Writing
Part Five - To break or not to break? Sentences and clauses
If your sentence contains lots of clauses that are so closely linked that they need to stay in the same container, the same packet of meaning, then the sentence needs to be long and unbroken. Having applied the simplicity test and made this decision, then there is a very important rule that should remain at the front of your mind:
Don’t break a clause.
Although there are some places where a small amount of information can be inserted without trouble (as in the sentence that follows this) a good writer will avoid breaking a clause in almost every case. The two examples below (adapted from an essay I edited) show how confusing things get when clauses are broken and information inserted between the pieces.
Original:
“Social-Constructionists paradoxically claim a truth in there being no universal-truths. Whilst discoveries and universal beliefs – such as the world is round, state-sanctioned killing is wrong, arguably refute this claim, Waldergrave – examining the differing ‘truths’ of proponents and opponents of the Holocaust – substituted ‘truth’ with ‘preferred meanings emerging out of values’.”
Edited version, two broken clauses joined:
“Social constructionists paradoxically claim a truth in there being no universal truths. Whilst certain discoveries and universal beliefs arguably refute this claim – such as the world is round, state-sanctioned killing is wrong – Waldergrave substituted ‘truth’ with ‘preferred meanings emerging out of values’ when examining the differing ‘truths’ of proponents and opponents of the Holocaust.”
In the following, the first sentence of the original is overburdened with clauses giving jumbled information. In the edited version, the quotation is removed and placed in a separate sentence, allowing the events of 2017 to be described with only one qualifying clause. The second sentence his its broken main clause joined in the edited version, with the illustrating example placed after it.
Original:
Where ‘clusters of episodes with a strong family-resemblance’ form behavioural patterns, during 2017, despite some anomalies – e.g. Lilly never crying – Sue and David described positive familial patterns forming. Meanwhile, whilst Lilly in particular distrusted men, Sue and David identified episodes, e.g. Lilly reaching for David’s hand whilst Christmas-shopping, as evidence of growing trust between them.
Edited version:
During 2017, despite some anomalies – e.g. Lilly never crying – Sue and David described positive familial patterns forming. Whilst Ellie particularly distrusted men, Sue and David identified episodes that were evidence of a growing trust between them, such as Lilly reaching for David’s hand whilst Christmas shopping. This demonstrates the ‘clusters of episodes with a strong family resemblance’ that form behavioural or relational patterns.
(names changed and quotation adapted)
Next: Bending the rules.
Bình luận