Going to war with prepositions
April 6, 2009 7:39 AM Subscribe
John Locke wrote "one may destroy a man who makes war upon him." I understand that in this sentence "one" and "him" are the same person, and "man" and "who" are a separate person. In the most basic sense, this sentence justifies fighting against people who war with you.
But I have read sentences before - often in poetry - where cases are switched. If the above sentence were such an example, then "one" and "who" would be a person, and "man" and "him" would be the other person. In this case, the sentence would suggest that one runs the risk of destroying someone if they make war against that someone.
What are some examples of such sentences?
Are you looking for a sentence that is ambiguous and allows both readings, or a sentence with that same structure that allows just the opposite reading?
If you modify the sentence to "One who makes war upon a man may destroy him" it would obviously support your reading. Are you just looking for a sentence where the antecedent to "who" is far away rather than right next to it?
posted by creasy boy at 9:17 AM on April 6, 2009
If you modify the sentence to "One who makes war upon a man may destroy him" it would obviously support your reading. Are you just looking for a sentence where the antecedent to "who" is far away rather than right next to it?
posted by creasy boy at 9:17 AM on April 6, 2009
"That man may destroy the house who has built it" sounds awkward and/or archaic but can only be read the way you suggest -- the 'who' corresponds to the 'man' and the 'it' corresponds to 'house.'
posted by creasy boy at 9:21 AM on April 6, 2009
posted by creasy boy at 9:21 AM on April 6, 2009
Response by poster: I'm not necessarily looking for sentences that can be read both ways. I'm just looking for historical examples of sentences where the subject-object relationship is the opposite of what modern ears and eyes are accustomed.
Another example, although not quite what I have in mind, is the quote from Macbeth:
"Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red"
In this case, "making the green one red" appears to mean "making the green (sea) red. Meaning turning a single green sea into a red one. However, that sentence is much more powerful if "one" is an adjective describing "red." So that his hand will make ALL the seas a single color of red. You could read the sentence aloud that way if you imagine a comma between green and red.
"Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green, one red"
Again, this isn't exactly what I'm looking for, but it's on the right track. Coincidentally, this obviously is a sentence that can be read both ways. But mostly I'm just looking for that subject-object switcharoo.
posted by nushustu at 9:31 AM on April 6, 2009
Another example, although not quite what I have in mind, is the quote from Macbeth:
"Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green one red"
In this case, "making the green one red" appears to mean "making the green (sea) red. Meaning turning a single green sea into a red one. However, that sentence is much more powerful if "one" is an adjective describing "red." So that his hand will make ALL the seas a single color of red. You could read the sentence aloud that way if you imagine a comma between green and red.
"Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood clean from my hand? No, this my hand will rather the multitudinous seas incarnadine, making the green, one red"
Again, this isn't exactly what I'm looking for, but it's on the right track. Coincidentally, this obviously is a sentence that can be read both ways. But mostly I'm just looking for that subject-object switcharoo.
posted by nushustu at 9:31 AM on April 6, 2009
Hmm...allright, you're not necessarily looking for ambiguity, but there are lots and lots of examples of ambiguity similar to your second example in Empson's Seven Types of Ambiguity -- he always finds examples where 2 or 3 different readings are all simultaneously intended. Maybe you'll find a subject-object reversal in there. And if you're interested in this kind of stuff the book's worth reading anyway.
posted by creasy boy at 9:42 AM on April 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by creasy boy at 9:42 AM on April 6, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm just looking for historical examples of sentences where the subject-object relationship is the opposite of what modern ears and eyes are accustomed.
I'm confused about what you're looking for. In your original example ("One may destroy . . ."), the subject-object relationship is the same in both readings ("One" is the subject, and "man" is the object); what changes is the word modified by the dependent clause "who makes war upon him," and the antecedent of "him." Yes? No? Am I misreading?
posted by Orinda at 4:49 PM on April 6, 2009
I'm confused about what you're looking for. In your original example ("One may destroy . . ."), the subject-object relationship is the same in both readings ("One" is the subject, and "man" is the object); what changes is the word modified by the dependent clause "who makes war upon him," and the antecedent of "him." Yes? No? Am I misreading?
posted by Orinda at 4:49 PM on April 6, 2009
Response by poster: I know this is my own limited writing that is causing this confusion. Let me try it another way.
"A may destroy B if B makes war upon A."
is one way of reading that sentence. Another way could be:
"A may destroy B if A makes war upon B."
It sounds weird when you think about it that way, but I know I've read sentences that were constructed in such a manner before. It's that second kind of sentence for which I'm looking.
posted by nushustu at 9:47 AM on April 7, 2009
"A may destroy B if B makes war upon A."
is one way of reading that sentence. Another way could be:
"A may destroy B if A makes war upon B."
It sounds weird when you think about it that way, but I know I've read sentences that were constructed in such a manner before. It's that second kind of sentence for which I'm looking.
posted by nushustu at 9:47 AM on April 7, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by molecicco at 8:31 AM on April 6, 2009