Several sentences to be checked

Question

Hello,Could you please opine whether the following sentences are correctin terms of grammar and word usage?* The whole of yesterday, Mat behaved himself quite ostentatious.* As a result of continuous urbanization, not a singe pristine piece of land has been left in the city center.* Architectural elements of the baroque 17th-century cathedral were loud and orotund.* To placate disturbance of the public, the country leader decided to appear on television with a public statement justifying the unreasonable expenses the government is responsible for.* Bilbo was such a skillful raconteur, so the children listened to his tales with a sinking heart.* The loud diatribe you heard from your office yesterday was uttered by a man vituperating some driver who had apparently driven over his foot.* The critique was so pithy, so that it was almost a pleasure to read it, in spite of the fact that the writing being criticized was one of my own.* The passage of light though the window was occluded by the almost completely opaque curtains.* The buds burgeoning on the trees signified that winter has already gone. /"buds burgeoning" – isn't it a tautology?/Thanks in advance.--Victor

Clive · Accepted Answer

Hi Victor,

Could you please opine whether the following sentences are correct

in terms of grammar and word usage?

* The whole of yesterday, Mat behaved himself quite ostentatious.

More idiomatic is 'all yesterday'.

Remove 'himself'.

Ostentatiously.

* As a result of continuous urbanization, not a singe pristine piece of land has been left in the city center.

* Architectural elements of the baroque 17th-century cathedral were loud and orotund.

OK, but the two adjectives personify the 'elements', and the uncommon 'orotund' attracts the reader's attention to the writing. It's OK as long as that's what you want to do.

* To placate ~~disturbance of~~ the public, the country's leader decided to appear on television with a public statement justifying the unreasonable expenses the government was is responsible for.

* Bilbo was such a skillful raconteur that ~~, so~~ the children listened to his tales with a sinking heart.

* The loud diatribe you heard from your office yesterday was uttered by a man vituperating some driver who had apparently driven over his foot.'Vituperate' is a very uncommon verb. I had to check to make sure it could be used transitively. In such an ordinary context, a rare word seems inappropriate.

* The critique was so pithy~~, so~~ that it was almost a pleasure to read it, in spite of the fact that the writing being criticized was ~~one of~~ my own.

* The passage of light though the window was occluded by the almost completely opaque curtains.

Again, 'occluded' is an uncommon word.

* The buds burgeoning on the trees signified that winter had ~~has~~ already gone. /"buds burgeoning" – isn't it a tautology?/ Possibly, but it's a nice image and the alliteration is pleasing.

Using uncommon words for no special reason often marks very good non-native English as being, . . . . well . . . , non-native.

Best wishes, Clive

Victor_amelkin · Answer

Hello Clive,

Thanks for corrections. Regarding uncommon words usage, it was done by intent.

>> Architectural elements of the baroque 17th-century cathedral
>> were loud and orotund.

> OK, but the two adjectives personify the 'elements'

Can't a noun be modified with more than one adjective? Would it be an error to say
"an elegant long-haired woman"? Or this concerns only adjectives qualifying the same
characteristic of an object (e.g., both "loud" and "orotund" qualify the pompousness of
the architectural style, but in a slightly different ways)?

Thanks in advance.

--

Victor

Clive · Answer

Hi,

>> Architectural elements of the baroque 17th-century cathedral
>> were loud and orotund.

> OK, but the two adjectives personify the 'elements'

Can't a noun be modified with more than one adjective? Sure. I didn't intend to suggest that it couldn't.

Would it be an error to say "an elegant long-haired woman"? Not at all.

Or this concerns only adjectives qualifying the same characteristic of an object (e.g., both "loud" and "orotund" qualify the pompousness of the architectural style, but in a slightly different ways)?

I wasn't talking about 'baroque 17th-century'.

I meant that the adjectives 'loud' and 'orotund' made the 'elements' sound like they were a person. There's' nothing wrong with doing that, of course.

Clive

Victor_amelkin · Answer

Clive,

> I meant that the adjectives 'loud' and 'orotund' made
> the 'elements' sound like they were a person. There's'
> nothing wrong with doing that, of course.

Sorry, but I still have not got it. What exactly makes "elements" sound like they
were a person? Did you mean that these two adjectives are commonly used to
describe people and it looks awkwardly if they qualify an inanimate object?

--
Victor

Clive · Answer

Hi,

What exactly makes "elements" sound like they
were a person?

Did you mean that these two adjectives are commonly used to
describe people Yes

and it looks awkwardly if they qualify an inanimate object? No, it's not awkward at all. It's stylish. I didn't mean to sound like I was being negative about it. I just meant that your sentence was so well-written that it made me think more about your good writing and less about the "architectural elements".

Clive

Victor_amelkin · Answer

Though a thin veil of misunderstanding still presents, in general
I've got your point

--

Victor

Clive · Answer

Hi,

I think that a thin veil of misunderstanding is common for most people, including me.

Clive

CalifJim · Answer

* The whole of yesterday, Mat behaved ~~himself~~ quite ostentatiously. Or All day yesterday.

to behave ostentatiously strikes me as odd. It seems that an explanation of what was ostentatious about the behavior needs to be added. "What was ostentatious about his behavior?" I ask myself.

* As a result of continuous urbanization, not a single pristine piece of land has been left in the city center. Fine.

* Architectural elements of the baroque 17th-century cathedral were loud and orotund.
I sense that loud and orotund are qualities of sound or of a voice, so they seem strangely out of place in a discussion of architecture, though perhaps they work metaphorically. I think I might have said that the architectural elements produced an exaggerated effect bordering on the pompous. In any case, I wouldn't use the word orotund at all, because I wouldn't trust my readers to know the meaning of it! But that's a matter of gauging your audience.

* To placate disturbance of the public, the country leader decided to appear on television with a public statement justifying the unreasonable expenses the government is responsible for.

You can't placate disturbance; placate needs a human object.

country leader isn't specific enough. I think you need the actual title.
If a statement is made on television, it is public, so you don't need to add public there.
The juxtaposition of justifying and unreasonable is somewhat jarring, as if the writer was not sure which point of view he was taking -- the president's view (justified expenses) or the public's view (unreasonable -- and therefore unjustifiable -- expenses). I would omit unreasonable unless I could make the change of viewpoint clear. Below are some possible rewrites. You can mix and match, of course.

To placate the public, the President decided ...
To quell the public disturbance, the Commander decided ...
To avert a public outcry, the President of the Assembly decided ...

... to appear on television with a statement ...
... to make a televised statement ...

... justifying the expenses the government is responsible for.
... justifying the expenses incurred by the government.
... justifying government expenses which the public regards as unreasonable.

* Bilbo was such a skillful raconteur~~, so~~ that the children listened to his tales with a sinking heart.
such a ... that ...

I assume that a sinking (despondent) heart was the effect that Bilbo desired.

* The loud diatribe you heard from your office yesterday was uttered by a man vituperating some driver who had apparently driven over his foot.
I don't claim to have mastered the verb vituperate, but it seems odd to me as a transitive with an individual person as object. vituperate the goverment, vituperate the bureaucracy, vituperate the committee, .... These are the uses I'm more familiar with, to the extent that I've read the word at all.

* The critique was so pithy~~, so~~ that it was almost a pleasure to read it, in spite of the fact that the writing being criticized was ~~one of~~ my own.
so ... that ... (as above)
the [article / novel / story / ...] was one of my own (countable)
but
the [writing / work / ...] was my own (uncountable)

* The passage of light though the window was occluded by the almost completely opaque curtains. OK.

* The buds burgeoning on the trees signified that winter ~~has~~ had already gone. /"buds burgeoning" - isn't it a tautology?/
Yes. It's a bit redundant, but not horribly so.

CJ

CalifJim · Answer

Clive'Vituperate' is a very uncommon verb. I had to check to make sure it could be used transitively.

Hee, haw!!! So did I!

Seeing this made me feel so much less stupid! Thanks for sharing it.

CJ

Victor_amelkin · Answer

Hello CJ,

Thanks for detailed explanation.

>> ... justifying the unreasonable expenses the government is responsible for.

> The juxtaposition of justifying and unreasonable is somewhat jarring, as if
> the writer was not sure which point of view he was taking...

Does it mean that one may justify, that is, show the reasonableness, only those
actions, which indeed were right? If somebody is trying to reason an essentially
harmful action by providing a specious argument the public buy, can't we say that
he/she is trying to justify this action?

>> Bilbo was such a skillful raconteur, so that the children listened to his tales
>> with a sinking heart.

> I assume that a sinking (despondent) heart was the effect that Bilbo desired.

I suppose, not. The implication was that his tales were breathtaking (thrilling,
exciting). To describe the effect his stories caused, my dictionry suggests
expressions

(i) with a sinking/palpitating heart

(ii) with a palpitating heart

Another dictionary suggests

(iii) with bated breath

for the same situation. As I understood, (i) has a different meaning. Do (ii) and
(iii) have meanings close to the desired one?

Thanks in advance.

--

Victor

Several sentences to be checked

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions