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.