Skip to main content

grammar - Why is "xxxx doth not a yyyy make" considered valid English?



Reading doth not a writer make.



This sounds all wrong so why it is acceptable to use?
The word order looks to be all out sequence (Object-Subject-Verb).
It should be "reading does not make you a writer" (Object-Verb-Subject).


And if this is Shakespearian, when and how did the word order in English change?



Answer



Let me offer an interpretation of this sentence.


The verb of the sentence is "doth not make", the subject is the gerund "reading" and the object is "a writer". So the order is in fact subject-verb-object except that part of the verb ('make') is pushed to the end. This is a figure of speech called hyperbaton, and its purpose is to place the emphasis on that part of the verb rather than on the object of the verb. There is additionally the use of the archaic "doth" for "does", but that is a minor matter.


So the emphasis is "Reading does not make you a writer."


In this particular case it is also an idiom, that is to say, a peculiar arrangement of words that follow special phrasing, different than normal grammatical rules might demand, but commonly used and so commonly accepted.


And, just to add to the mix, there is also an ellipsis in there that is not really obvious. Here the verb "make" is actually trivalent, the subject is "reading" but it has two objects, "you" and "a writer". The first of these is omitted by ellipsis, which de-emphasizes its importance, pushing the emphasis back onto make, which is already emphasized by the hyperbaton.


So this little short phrase has a lot going on. Three figures of speech, idiom, hyperbaton and ellipsis, and an archaic verb particle. Not bad for a six word sentence.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more