The omissions

Question

A sorcerer, the protagonist got into his best friend Luke's dream about "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland."

Before too long a wind whipped the fog away and I saw that I walked in a high rocky place, the heavens a blaze of starry light bright enough to read by. I followed a dark trail leading off to the edge of the world. . . .
["Sign of Chaos" of The Great Book of Amber by Roger Zelazny]
I'd like to know if the underlined phrase is the omission of "in the heavens being a blaze of starry light bright enough to read by."
Thank you in advance for your help.

GPY · Accepted Answer

It just means "the heavens were a blaze of starry light ...".

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, GPY, for another so very kind answer from you.

I think the verb be can easily be omitted in the spoken English, but I was wondering if I can omit only the verb be, with not being along with any pronoun immediately preceding, in the written English.
And I was wondering if "heavens" can be in apposition with "a blaze of starry light bright."

CalifJim · Answer

park sang joonthe underlined phrase

I would add the word "where" at the beginning of GPY's paraphrase. Otherwise, you have a comma splice problem.

... in a high rocky place, (where) the heavens (were) a blaze of starry light (which was) bright enough to read by.

I would not paraphrase with "being": ... walked in a ... place, the heavens being a blaze .... It suggests that I walked there because the heavens were a blaze ..., and it should be clear to you that this is not the intended meaning.

CJ

GPY · Answer

park sang joonI think the verb be can easily be omitted in the spoken English,

The kind of omission we are talking about here is literary. It would rarely be used in conversation.

park sang joonAnd I was wondering if "heavens" can be in apposition with "a blaze of starry light bright."

Well, "a blaze of starry light bright" is not a phrase. "bright enough to read by" modifies "starry light". But anyway, I wouldn't say anything was in apposition. Apposition might be something like "the heavens, a blaze of starry light, were bright enough to read by", which isn't what your phrase means (even though it may not be very important to the meaning).

CalifJim Otherwise, you have a comma splice problem.

Yes, I agree you would if you made a direct substitution.

Park sang joon · Answer

Thank you, Mr.Jim, for your very valuable opinion.

Thank you, GPY, for your continuing support.

I have been taught the subject is in apposition to the subjective complement.
So I was wondering why it is "the heavens were a blaze of starry light," not "the heavens had a blaze of starry light."

CalifJim · Answer

park sang joonSo I was wondering why it is "the heavens were a blaze of starry light," not "the heavens had a blaze of starry light."

It's a metaphor. Instead of saying that the heavens emitted the light, which is the scientifically correct form, it says that the heavens were the light. Taken literally, that's false because 'the heavens' and 'light' are certainly not the same thing. Taken metaphorically, it's all right. It simply suggests that the heavens were completely filled with sources of bright light. Metaphors imply a way of thinking which may be called "as if" thinking. The heavens looked as if they were completely filled with light becomes The heavens were light.

CJ

The omissions

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions