It looked a church.

Question

Hi!What do you think of It looked a chruch (meaning it looked like a church). I am almost certain it's wrong but I need a native-speaker's verification.

Nona the brit · Accepted Answer

no, it's not correct.

Bokeh · Answer

My Novel by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bulwer-Lytton%2C_1st_Baron_Lytton

"Between our pedestrian and the inn there stood, naked and alone, on the common land, a church; our ancestors never would have chosen that site for it; therefore it was a modern church,--modern Gothic; handsome to an eye not versed in the attributes of ecclesiastical architecture, very barbarous to an eye that was. Somehow or other the church looked cold and raw and uninviting. It looked a church for show, --much too big for the scattered hamlet, and void of all the venerable associations which give their peculiar and unspeakable atmosphere of piety to the churches in which succeeding generations have knelt and worshipped. Leonard paused and surveyed the edifice with an unlearned but poetical gaze; it dissatisfied him."

Feebs11 · Answer

This book was written in the mid-19th century. There will be usages that are not common today. In this sentence, Lytton has omitted "like" - his sentence "It looked [like] a church for show" says that the building was merely appearance and has no spiritual quality.

Magic79 · Answer

Thanks Nona!

Feebs, it is good to know that it used to be natural English and then it fell out of use. Thanks Bokeh for your search. I actually goolged "looked a church" and found 1-2 results.

In the novel, "looked a chruch" was preceded by

looked + adjectives:

the church looked cold and raw and uninviting

So it seemed a good literary practice to use the same pattern with : looked a church

I also have a feeling that when you pause after "looked" and then follow with"a church for show" it could be more auditory than written ,more a speech than a text.

Bokeh · Answer

Feebs11This book was written in the mid-19th century. There will be usages that are not common today.

Irrespective of when it was written it sounds fine to my ear. Lytton's work was written in modern English and follows the same rules and grammar of today.

The writing guide "The Elements of Style", much of which remains unchanged, was first released in 1918 but that doesn't stop it being required reading for American high school and college composition classes.

Marius Hancu · Answer

I think Bokeh is right:

---------
look:

9 : to have an appearance that befits or accords with<the actors ... looked the parts they were called upon to play -- Linguaphone Magazine> <he looked a typical sturdy John Bull -- C.H.Driver> <she looked her age>

/
-------------

Feebs11 · Answer

I agree with both of you on this specific sentence, but it is something that non-English people should be aware of . 19th century writing is often different in syntax, and changes a lot across the century. You can see that from the number of discussions relating to Jane Austen alone in the various forums.

Magic79 · Answer

Interesting!

Thanks for the feedback

Nona the brit · Answer

I agree that 'It looked a church for show' is ok, but that sentence is different in meaning and structure to simply 'It looked a church.'

It looked a church.

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions