Author of two previous novels, his third…
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
The Drinker was begun in 1944 when Hans Fallada was imprisoned in a criminal asylum for the attempted murder of his wife. Author of two previous novels, his third, The Drinker, is autobiographical and tells the story, in diary form, of a man driven by the demons of morphine and alcohol.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/sep/02/fiction.features1
Maybe I am a little bit slow on the uptake but I do not understand the passage in bold. The passage does not make sense to me. The subject "author of two previous novels" has no predicate. It seems to as if this part is cut off.
meaning-in-context
asked Nov 24 at 19:15
bart-leby
4,40442356
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
The Drinker was begun in 1944 when Hans Fallada was imprisoned in a criminal asylum for the attempted murder of his wife. Author of two previous novels, his third, The Drinker, is autobiographical and tells the story, in diary form, of a man driven by the demons of morphine and alcohol.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/sep/02/fiction.features1
Maybe I am a little bit slow on the uptake but I do not understand the passage in bold. The passage does not make sense to me. The subject "author of two previous novels" has no predicate. It seems to as if this part is cut off.
meaning-in-context
asked Nov 24 at 19:15
bart-leby
4,40442356
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
The Drinker was begun in 1944 when Hans Fallada was imprisoned in a criminal asylum for the attempted murder of his wife. Author of two previous novels, his third, The Drinker, is autobiographical and tells the story, in diary form, of a man driven by the demons of morphine and alcohol.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/sep/02/fiction.features1
Maybe I am a little bit slow on the uptake but I do not understand the passage in bold. The passage does not make sense to me. The subject "author of two previous novels" has no predicate. It seems to as if this part is cut off.
meaning-in-context
asked Nov 24 at 19:15
bart-leby
4,40442356
The Drinker was begun in 1944 when Hans Fallada was imprisoned in a criminal asylum for the attempted murder of his wife. Author of two previous novels, his third, The Drinker, is autobiographical and tells the story, in diary form, of a man driven by the demons of morphine and alcohol.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/sep/02/fiction.features1
Maybe I am a little bit slow on the uptake but I do not understand the passage in bold. The passage does not make sense to me. The subject "author of two previous novels" has no predicate. It seems to as if this part is cut off.
meaning-in-context
meaning-in-context
asked Nov 24 at 19:15
bart-leby
4,40442356
asked Nov 24 at 19:15
bart-leby
4,40442356
asked Nov 24 at 19:15
bart-leby
4,40442356
asked Nov 24 at 19:15
bart-leby
4,40442356
asked Nov 24 at 19:15
bart-leby
4,40442356
4,40442356
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
Your bolded text is not a clause but a noun phrase, which should be set in apposition to another noun phrase, its "predicand", which it describes. Usually the predicand is the noun phrase which immediately precedes the appositive:
Hans Fallada, author of two previous novels, started his third . . .
But when the appositive phrase falls at the start of a sentence it should describe the immediately following subject, like this:
Author of two previous novels, Hans Fallada started his third, The Drinker, in 1944 while he was imprisoned in a criminal asylum for the attempted murder of his wife.
The writer of this passage has carelessly disregarded this simple convention for establishing the predicand of an appositive, compelling the reader to figure out what it was the writer's job to make clear.
answered Nov 24 at 19:33
StoneyB
169k10230409
2
Don't know why you think it's a convention. When the subject (Hans Fallada) has already been named, it's perfectly normal to use pronouns thereafter. While I can't dissect the grammar, the sentence is a fairly normal use to a native speaker.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 3:37
4
@jamesqf If Fallada has been previously named the pronoun is fine: "Author of two previous novels, he began his third ...". But his is only by the vagaries of labelling a pronoun: the genitive case recasts a noun or pronoun as a determiner (if you're modernist) or an adjective (if you're a traditionalist), a constituent of the noun phrase his third novel. As it stands, the writer glosses the third novel, not Fallada, as the "author of two previous novels".
– StoneyB
Nov 25 at 4:32
2
Well, I'm not a grammarian, so I'll have to take your word for it :-) But my point is that it is a fairly normal English sentence/paragraph, which I had no trouble understanding, and might well have written if I wrote about stuff like that.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 17:15
Would it be fair to treat is as something akin to an introductory phrase?
– shawnt00
Nov 25 at 23:24
@shawnt00 Well, it is an introductory phrase.CGEL would call it a "supplement", not a constituent of the main clause but something only loosely attached to the main clause. The argument here is the character of the attachment.
– StoneyB
Nov 26 at 12:44
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
If we are willing to cut the author some slack:
Author of two previous novels, his third [novel], The Drinker, is autobiographical and tells the story ...
treating Author of two previous novels not as a noun phrase but as a kind of absolute construction.
answered Nov 24 at 19:52
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
You are almost correct. The intended meaning of the bolded fragment is that Hans Fallada had written two novels before he wrote The Drinker, and then the rest of the sentence describes the book. However, the way the sentence is written suggests that The Drinker (being Hans Fallada's third, though third what is unspecified) is the author of two previous novels. This is obviously nonsense, and therefore we have to search for other possible meanings.
answered Nov 24 at 19:30
Darael
4197
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
Your bolded text is not a clause but a noun phrase, which should be set in apposition to another noun phrase, its "predicand", which it describes. Usually the predicand is the noun phrase which immediately precedes the appositive:
Hans Fallada, author of two previous novels, started his third . . .
But when the appositive phrase falls at the start of a sentence it should describe the immediately following subject, like this:
Author of two previous novels, Hans Fallada started his third, The Drinker, in 1944 while he was imprisoned in a criminal asylum for the attempted murder of his wife.
The writer of this passage has carelessly disregarded this simple convention for establishing the predicand of an appositive, compelling the reader to figure out what it was the writer's job to make clear.
answered Nov 24 at 19:33
StoneyB
169k10230409
2
Don't know why you think it's a convention. When the subject (Hans Fallada) has already been named, it's perfectly normal to use pronouns thereafter. While I can't dissect the grammar, the sentence is a fairly normal use to a native speaker.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 3:37
4
@jamesqf If Fallada has been previously named the pronoun is fine: "Author of two previous novels, he began his third ...". But his is only by the vagaries of labelling a pronoun: the genitive case recasts a noun or pronoun as a determiner (if you're modernist) or an adjective (if you're a traditionalist), a constituent of the noun phrase his third novel. As it stands, the writer glosses the third novel, not Fallada, as the "author of two previous novels".
– StoneyB
Nov 25 at 4:32
2
Well, I'm not a grammarian, so I'll have to take your word for it :-) But my point is that it is a fairly normal English sentence/paragraph, which I had no trouble understanding, and might well have written if I wrote about stuff like that.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 17:15
Would it be fair to treat is as something akin to an introductory phrase?
– shawnt00
Nov 25 at 23:24
@shawnt00 Well, it is an introductory phrase.CGEL would call it a "supplement", not a constituent of the main clause but something only loosely attached to the main clause. The argument here is the character of the attachment.
– StoneyB
Nov 26 at 12:44
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
Your bolded text is not a clause but a noun phrase, which should be set in apposition to another noun phrase, its "predicand", which it describes. Usually the predicand is the noun phrase which immediately precedes the appositive:
Hans Fallada, author of two previous novels, started his third . . .
But when the appositive phrase falls at the start of a sentence it should describe the immediately following subject, like this:
Author of two previous novels, Hans Fallada started his third, The Drinker, in 1944 while he was imprisoned in a criminal asylum for the attempted murder of his wife.
The writer of this passage has carelessly disregarded this simple convention for establishing the predicand of an appositive, compelling the reader to figure out what it was the writer's job to make clear.
answered Nov 24 at 19:33
StoneyB
169k10230409
2
Don't know why you think it's a convention. When the subject (Hans Fallada) has already been named, it's perfectly normal to use pronouns thereafter. While I can't dissect the grammar, the sentence is a fairly normal use to a native speaker.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 3:37
4
@jamesqf If Fallada has been previously named the pronoun is fine: "Author of two previous novels, he began his third ...". But his is only by the vagaries of labelling a pronoun: the genitive case recasts a noun or pronoun as a determiner (if you're modernist) or an adjective (if you're a traditionalist), a constituent of the noun phrase his third novel. As it stands, the writer glosses the third novel, not Fallada, as the "author of two previous novels".
– StoneyB
Nov 25 at 4:32
2
Well, I'm not a grammarian, so I'll have to take your word for it :-) But my point is that it is a fairly normal English sentence/paragraph, which I had no trouble understanding, and might well have written if I wrote about stuff like that.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 17:15
Would it be fair to treat is as something akin to an introductory phrase?
– shawnt00
Nov 25 at 23:24
@shawnt00 Well, it is an introductory phrase.CGEL would call it a "supplement", not a constituent of the main clause but something only loosely attached to the main clause. The argument here is the character of the attachment.
– StoneyB
Nov 26 at 12:44
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
up vote
14
down vote
accepted
Your bolded text is not a clause but a noun phrase, which should be set in apposition to another noun phrase, its "predicand", which it describes. Usually the predicand is the noun phrase which immediately precedes the appositive:
Hans Fallada, author of two previous novels, started his third . . .
But when the appositive phrase falls at the start of a sentence it should describe the immediately following subject, like this:
Author of two previous novels, Hans Fallada started his third, The Drinker, in 1944 while he was imprisoned in a criminal asylum for the attempted murder of his wife.
The writer of this passage has carelessly disregarded this simple convention for establishing the predicand of an appositive, compelling the reader to figure out what it was the writer's job to make clear.
answered Nov 24 at 19:33
StoneyB
169k10230409
Your bolded text is not a clause but a noun phrase, which should be set in apposition to another noun phrase, its "predicand", which it describes. Usually the predicand is the noun phrase which immediately precedes the appositive:
Hans Fallada, author of two previous novels, started his third . . .
But when the appositive phrase falls at the start of a sentence it should describe the immediately following subject, like this:
Author of two previous novels, Hans Fallada started his third, The Drinker, in 1944 while he was imprisoned in a criminal asylum for the attempted murder of his wife.
The writer of this passage has carelessly disregarded this simple convention for establishing the predicand of an appositive, compelling the reader to figure out what it was the writer's job to make clear.
answered Nov 24 at 19:33
StoneyB
169k10230409
edited Nov 25 at 2:49
answered Nov 24 at 19:33
StoneyB
169k10230409
answered Nov 24 at 19:33
StoneyB
169k10230409
answered Nov 24 at 19:33
StoneyB
169k10230409
169k10230409
2
Don't know why you think it's a convention. When the subject (Hans Fallada) has already been named, it's perfectly normal to use pronouns thereafter. While I can't dissect the grammar, the sentence is a fairly normal use to a native speaker.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 3:37
4
@jamesqf If Fallada has been previously named the pronoun is fine: "Author of two previous novels, he began his third ...". But his is only by the vagaries of labelling a pronoun: the genitive case recasts a noun or pronoun as a determiner (if you're modernist) or an adjective (if you're a traditionalist), a constituent of the noun phrase his third novel. As it stands, the writer glosses the third novel, not Fallada, as the "author of two previous novels".
– StoneyB
Nov 25 at 4:32
2
Well, I'm not a grammarian, so I'll have to take your word for it :-) But my point is that it is a fairly normal English sentence/paragraph, which I had no trouble understanding, and might well have written if I wrote about stuff like that.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 17:15
Would it be fair to treat is as something akin to an introductory phrase?
– shawnt00
Nov 25 at 23:24
@shawnt00 Well, it is an introductory phrase.CGEL would call it a "supplement", not a constituent of the main clause but something only loosely attached to the main clause. The argument here is the character of the attachment.
– StoneyB
Nov 26 at 12:44
|
show 2 more comments
2
Don't know why you think it's a convention. When the subject (Hans Fallada) has already been named, it's perfectly normal to use pronouns thereafter. While I can't dissect the grammar, the sentence is a fairly normal use to a native speaker.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 3:37
4
@jamesqf If Fallada has been previously named the pronoun is fine: "Author of two previous novels, he began his third ...". But his is only by the vagaries of labelling a pronoun: the genitive case recasts a noun or pronoun as a determiner (if you're modernist) or an adjective (if you're a traditionalist), a constituent of the noun phrase his third novel. As it stands, the writer glosses the third novel, not Fallada, as the "author of two previous novels".
– StoneyB
Nov 25 at 4:32
2
Well, I'm not a grammarian, so I'll have to take your word for it :-) But my point is that it is a fairly normal English sentence/paragraph, which I had no trouble understanding, and might well have written if I wrote about stuff like that.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 17:15
Would it be fair to treat is as something akin to an introductory phrase?
– shawnt00
Nov 25 at 23:24
@shawnt00 Well, it is an introductory phrase.CGEL would call it a "supplement", not a constituent of the main clause but something only loosely attached to the main clause. The argument here is the character of the attachment.
– StoneyB
Nov 26 at 12:44
2
2
Don't know why you think it's a convention. When the subject (Hans Fallada) has already been named, it's perfectly normal to use pronouns thereafter. While I can't dissect the grammar, the sentence is a fairly normal use to a native speaker.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 3:37
Don't know why you think it's a convention. When the subject (Hans Fallada) has already been named, it's perfectly normal to use pronouns thereafter. While I can't dissect the grammar, the sentence is a fairly normal use to a native speaker.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 3:37
4
4
@jamesqf If Fallada has been previously named the pronoun is fine: "Author of two previous novels, he began his third ...". But his is only by the vagaries of labelling a pronoun: the genitive case recasts a noun or pronoun as a determiner (if you're modernist) or an adjective (if you're a traditionalist), a constituent of the noun phrase his third novel. As it stands, the writer glosses the third novel, not Fallada, as the "author of two previous novels".
– StoneyB
Nov 25 at 4:32
@jamesqf If Fallada has been previously named the pronoun is fine: "Author of two previous novels, he began his third ...". But his is only by the vagaries of labelling a pronoun: the genitive case recasts a noun or pronoun as a determiner (if you're modernist) or an adjective (if you're a traditionalist), a constituent of the noun phrase his third novel. As it stands, the writer glosses the third novel, not Fallada, as the "author of two previous novels".
– StoneyB
Nov 25 at 4:32
2
2
Well, I'm not a grammarian, so I'll have to take your word for it :-) But my point is that it is a fairly normal English sentence/paragraph, which I had no trouble understanding, and might well have written if I wrote about stuff like that.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 17:15
Well, I'm not a grammarian, so I'll have to take your word for it :-) But my point is that it is a fairly normal English sentence/paragraph, which I had no trouble understanding, and might well have written if I wrote about stuff like that.
– jamesqf
Nov 25 at 17:15
Would it be fair to treat is as something akin to an introductory phrase?
– shawnt00
Nov 25 at 23:24
Would it be fair to treat is as something akin to an introductory phrase?
– shawnt00
Nov 25 at 23:24
@shawnt00 Well, it is an introductory phrase.CGEL would call it a "supplement", not a constituent of the main clause but something only loosely attached to the main clause. The argument here is the character of the attachment.
– StoneyB
Nov 26 at 12:44
@shawnt00 Well, it is an introductory phrase.CGEL would call it a "supplement", not a constituent of the main clause but something only loosely attached to the main clause. The argument here is the character of the attachment.
– StoneyB
Nov 26 at 12:44
|
show 2 more comments
up vote
5
down vote
If we are willing to cut the author some slack:
Author of two previous novels, his third [novel], The Drinker, is autobiographical and tells the story ...
treating Author of two previous novels not as a noun phrase but as a kind of absolute construction.
answered Nov 24 at 19:52
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
If we are willing to cut the author some slack:
Author of two previous novels, his third [novel], The Drinker, is autobiographical and tells the story ...
treating Author of two previous novels not as a noun phrase but as a kind of absolute construction.
answered Nov 24 at 19:52
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
If we are willing to cut the author some slack:
Author of two previous novels, his third [novel], The Drinker, is autobiographical and tells the story ...
treating Author of two previous novels not as a noun phrase but as a kind of absolute construction.
answered Nov 24 at 19:52
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
If we are willing to cut the author some slack:
Author of two previous novels, his third [novel], The Drinker, is autobiographical and tells the story ...
treating Author of two previous novels not as a noun phrase but as a kind of absolute construction.
answered Nov 24 at 19:52
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
answered Nov 24 at 19:52
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
answered Nov 24 at 19:52
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
answered Nov 24 at 19:52
Tᴚoɯɐuo
105k677169
105k677169
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
You are almost correct. The intended meaning of the bolded fragment is that Hans Fallada had written two novels before he wrote The Drinker, and then the rest of the sentence describes the book. However, the way the sentence is written suggests that The Drinker (being Hans Fallada's third, though third what is unspecified) is the author of two previous novels. This is obviously nonsense, and therefore we have to search for other possible meanings.
answered Nov 24 at 19:30
Darael
4197
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
You are almost correct. The intended meaning of the bolded fragment is that Hans Fallada had written two novels before he wrote The Drinker, and then the rest of the sentence describes the book. However, the way the sentence is written suggests that The Drinker (being Hans Fallada's third, though third what is unspecified) is the author of two previous novels. This is obviously nonsense, and therefore we have to search for other possible meanings.
answered Nov 24 at 19:30
Darael
4197
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
You are almost correct. The intended meaning of the bolded fragment is that Hans Fallada had written two novels before he wrote The Drinker, and then the rest of the sentence describes the book. However, the way the sentence is written suggests that The Drinker (being Hans Fallada's third, though third what is unspecified) is the author of two previous novels. This is obviously nonsense, and therefore we have to search for other possible meanings.
answered Nov 24 at 19:30
Darael
4197
You are almost correct. The intended meaning of the bolded fragment is that Hans Fallada had written two novels before he wrote The Drinker, and then the rest of the sentence describes the book. However, the way the sentence is written suggests that The Drinker (being Hans Fallada's third, though third what is unspecified) is the author of two previous novels. This is obviously nonsense, and therefore we have to search for other possible meanings.
answered Nov 24 at 19:30
Darael
4197
edited Nov 24 at 19:40
answered Nov 24 at 19:30
Darael
4197
answered Nov 24 at 19:30
Darael
4197
answered Nov 24 at 19:30
Darael
4197
4197
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language Learners Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f186539%2fauthor-of-two-previous-novels-his-third%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
