A Sentence in Need of Clarification

Sometimes I read a sentence so laden with academic jargon that its purpose is defeated. One such sentence appears in Voigt’s The Art of Syntax, a book built on an interesting premise, but one that, at times, is unfilled. Here’s the sentence.

Ordinarily, a coordinated (independent) “but” clause is worth more to a sentence than a restrictive (subordinate) “if” clause; Kunitz’s exactly parallel lines, using a limited and reshuffled lexicon, redress the grammatical power of the rational objection. (30)

Specifically, this is the wording that caused me to pause: “redress the grammatical power of the rational objection.” How can a “rational objection” have “grammatical power”? Somehow, according to Voigt, both Kunitz’s parallel lines and his¬†vocabulary set right the rational objection’s “grammatical power,” but how?

Further, why is a coordinated clause worth more to a sentence than a restrictive one? How much more is it worth? And what determines a clause’s worth?

Finally, what is the connection between the sentence’s first independent clause and its second? The sentence would flow better if its second clause explained “worth more” instead of detouring.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s