The importance of word order

[Justin Swanton]

This is something I suspect a lot of writers don't pay sufficient attention to. Much of the nuance in English comes from word order. Consider:

1. I only told him to write a letter.

2. I told him only to write a letter.

3. I told him to write only a letter.​

Each sentence means something subtly different.

1. The only thing I did was to tell him to write a letter. I didn't do anything else.

2. I told him to do nothing else except write a letter.

3. I told him that he mustn't write anything else except a letter.​

Any other examples of how important word order is for meaning?

 

[TheDustyZebra]

Hmm. Not quite.

1. All I did was TELL him to write a letter -- I didn't force him to do it.

2. I didn't tell him anything other than to write a letter.


Yes, rearranging placement of "only" is one of the things I do when editing. But I hardly ever bother to explain why.

 

[HareBrain]

I would interpret (2) as "I told him one thing, which was to write a letter". For me, your explanation (2) would be: "I told him to only write a letter" (though this might then be confused with your explanation (3), so would be better reworded).

But you're absolutely right that a lot of writers don't pay attention to this stuff.

 

[farntfar]

This is something I suspect a lot of writers don't pay sufficient attention to.

I suspect writers don't pay a lot of attention?
I don't pay a lot of attention to suspect writers ?

 

[Stuart Suffel]

This is something I suspect a lot of writers don't pay sufficient attention to. Much of the nuance in English comes from word order. Consider:

1. I only told him to write a letter.

2. I told him only to write a letter.

3. I told him to write only a letter.​

Each sentence means something subtly different.

1. The only thing I did was to tell him to write a letter. I didn't do anything else.

2. I told him to do nothing else except write a letter.

3. I told him that he mustn't write anything else except a letter.​

Any other examples of how important word order is for meaning?

There's a lot more.

Only fits everywhere in that sentence, some with the same results, others quite different.

i recently wrote 'he moved a little forward to get a better look'

but 'he moved forward a little to get a better look'. would have been better. Can you say why that might be?

 

[Ursa major]

Yes, move a few words and the whole thing can change....

he moved a little forward to get a better look

Was this set at a football (soccer) match?

I've got an image in my mind of a team (the forward's) about to take a free kick on goal and that forward is standing in front of the defensive wall (specifically in front of one of the smallest players in that wall, the PoV character**). What we don't know is whether the wall is inside the penalty area (in which case, the PoV character is risking giving away a penalty***) or outside it, in which case the risk is merely giving a free click closer to the gaol. (This may even benefit the PoV character's team if the ball is now so close to the goal that the free kick taker will have difficulty getting the ball over the wall and under the crossbar.


** - I'm assuming that the PoV character is small because he has to move the little forward to get a better view.

*** - EDIT: Thinking about it: I'm not sure the ref can award a penalty when the ball is not in play.

 

[Justin Swanton]

There's a lot more.

Only fits everywhere in that sentence, some with the same results, others quite different.

i recently wrote 'he moved a little forward to get a better look'

but 'he moved forward a little to get a better look'. would have been better. Can you say why that might be?

Because putting 'little' in front of anything that might be construed to be a noun turns it into an adjective. 'Little' has to be absolutely on its own to turn into an adverb (actually, it's still an adjective with an understood noun: "He moved forward a little [distance] to get a better look".

 

[Dave]

i recently wrote 'he moved a little forward to get a better look'

Was this set at a football (soccer) match?

Élton José Xavier Gomes: Height 5 feet .63 inches



I don't have any examples of moving words, but punctuation can make huge differences without any move. There is a story, possibly apocryphal, about an English professor who asked a class to punctuate a sentence he wrote on the board and got different responses from men and women.

The men wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."

The women wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing."

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I agree that it's important for a writer to pay attention to these things. Readers usually don't pay attention to word order consciously, but they may read a sentence the way it is written instead of the way the writer intended it, spend a moment trying to make sense of something that doesn't make sense in the context, and be temporarily thrown out of the story as a result.

For me, as a reader, if I can figure out what the writer thought they were saying, even if they didn't say it, I can let it go and slip back into the story pretty quickly. But if, after re-reading it a couple of times and trying to make sense of it, it still doesn't make sense, I'll usually go on reading but there may still be a part of my mind engaged with that particular sentence because I want to understand it, I want to believe that it's my fault instead of the writer's, that I was simply being dense.

It's quite possible, of course, that most readers are not nearly as obsessive as I am and they'll push the question aside, forget it, and it won't affect their reading after that.

Worst of all is when I keep trying and the sentence still doesn't make sense in context and I wonder if maybe I'm at fault because I missed something important earlier, something I might need to know later. If I hadn't missed it, would the meaning of that sentence be perfectly clear just the way it was written? When that question pops into my mind, I'll usually go back a few pages and try to find whatever it was I might have missed. (Because sometimes I do make that kind of mistake and miss something I should know later, and I can't be sure unless I check.) If I go back and still don't find anything, that's a big interruption in the story and all for nothing, made worse if I can't let the question go and still keep trying to figure it out. Obviously, I'd be better off if I was the kind of reader who could read the sentence through a second or third time and then just let it go. It's not like there is going to be a quiz later and I'm going to need to answer questions based on my understanding of that sentence (or any other part of the book for that matter)!

But how much easier it would have been for readers like me if the writer had written a sentence that said what it was supposed to mean instead of one that just missed because of word order or punctuation.

 

[Stuart Suffel]

Because putting 'little' in front of anything that might be construed to be a noun turns it into an adjective. 'Little' has to be absolutely on its own to turn into an adverb (actually, it's still an adjective with an understood noun: "He moved forward a little [distance] to get a better look".

ETA Original post quote

[i recently wrote 'he moved a little forward to get a better look'

but 'he moved forward a little to get a better look'. would have been better]

'Little' in this case acts as an adverb of degree, rather than as an adjective.

'Forward' is an intransitive preposition, acting as an adverb.

so since both are acting as adverbs their position is not technically incorrect. They each modify the other and both of them also modify moved.

yet the second sentence I believe to be better.

Here's why.


The sentence 'he moved forward a little' is understood thus.

He moved (action), forward (direction) a little (the degree of direction, i.e., it was a small or minimal move)

The sentence 'he moved a little forward could be understood thus;

He moved (action) a little (degree of movement) forward (direction of movement)

so it boils down to the sense of pacing or intent - what is the most important thing, the primary thing, the more important adverb which acts upon the verb move?

The verb 'moved' is modified by 'forward' more so than little in this case, re my intent. That is, the more significant event is the direction of the action (forward), rather than the degree of that movement (a little) in terms of the pacing of the action. 'He moved forward' is more forceful, and that force is then modified. 'He moved a little' is less forceful. The move is reduced (modified in degree) and then the action is given a direction (forward)

If my intent was to reduce the move in degree, and then stipulate direction, it would be more like 'He moved a little, then turned (left/right/back/sideways/ went straight on). This has less force, and conveys a different speed, and intent.

The first is essentially one quick action to get a better view, the latter is a more measured, slower act, followed by a second action.

simples.

I'm making this up as I go along, but I think that's the logic of it.)

 

[Gonk the Insane]

But it, after re-reading it a couple of times and trying to make sense of it, it still doesn't make sense, I'll usually go on reading but there may still be a part of my mind engaged with that particular sentence because I want to understand it, I want to believe that it's my fault instead of the writer's, that I was simply being dense.

Yes, I find the same thing. Sometimes I have missed something, but sometimes it's just a clunky sentence, or one where the meaning is unclear. It really pulls me out of the story. Always has done, since long before I started writing.

I love the nuances of the English language, and how changing a single word, emphasising a different word, or the repositioning of a comma can alter the entire meaning of a sentence. Sometimes the writer may intentionally leave a sentence like that, but more often than not in my experience, those unclear sentences are often just a product of sloppy writing.

It's not like there is going to be a quiz later

There isn't? Nobody told me!

The men wrote: "A woman, without her man, is nothing."

The women wrote: "A woman: without her, man is nothing."

I've encountered this before, too, and I think it may be apocryphal, though I really hope it did happen.

 

[Stuart Suffel]

Yes, move a few words and the whole thing can change....Was this set at a football (soccer) match?

I've got an image in my mind of a team (the forward's) about to take a free kick on goal and that forward is standing in front of the defensive wall (specifically in front of one of the smallest players in that wall, the PoV character**). What we don't know is whether the wall is inside the penalty area (in which case, the PoV character is risking giving away a penalty***) or outside it, in which case the risk is merely giving a free click closer to the gaol. (This may even benefit the PoV character's team if the ball is now so close to the goal that the free kick taker will have difficulty getting the ball over the wall and under the crossbar.


** - I'm assuming that the PoV character is small because he has to move the little forward to get a better view.

*** - EDIT: Thinking about it: I'm not sure the ref can award a penalty when the ball is not in play.

You've summed up my thinking entirely.

Sadly, I've sobered up since....

 

[Montero]

This seems the right moment to mention Lynn Truss's book, Eats, Shoots and Leaves. (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0007329067/?tag=brite-21)
Complete with a picture of a panda with a gun in its hand......

 

[Justin Swanton]

Here's my favourite example of why punctuation matters. Can anyone punctuate this to make it make sense?

jack where john had had had had had had had had had had had the teachers approval

Spoiler: Waaaaait. Don't click just yet. You can do it....

Jack, where John had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

 

[Montero]

Regarding word order - this has prodded old memories of learning German at school and an example given by the teacher to show how word order didn't matter in German, due to something about the way the verb is written, or the preposition or something (it was a while ago and I struggled with German). Anyway, the following two:
Dog bites man
Man bites dog

Could be written either way round in German and due to the way German grammar works, both could mean man bites dog, or both could mean dog bites man.

I googled and German Grammar gives it - so it is the preposition not the verb :

Der Hund beißt den Mann. The dog bites the man.
Den Mann beißt der Hund. The dog bites the man.
Beißt der Hund den Mann? Is the dog biting the man?
Beißt den Mann der Hund? Is the dog biting the man?

 

[HareBrain]

Here's my favourite example of why punctuation matters. Can anyone punctuate this to make it make sense?

Only from having seen it years ago. Remembering was enough of an achievement for me!

 

[Ursa major]

due to something about the way the verb is written, or the preposition or something (it was a while ago and I struggled with German

The "something" is inflection,

the modification of a word to express different grammatical categories such as tense, case, voice, aspect, person, number, gender, and mood. The inflection of verbs is also called conjugation, and one can refer to the inflection of nouns, adjectives and pronouns as declension.

Obviously English is inflected to some degree (verbs are modified to give the present and past tenses, although other "tenses" are created by using other words: will, have, had, etc.), but English adjectives and nouns (other than the latter usually having different singular and plural forms) -- with a few exceptions (blond, blonde) -- are not modified.

Similarly, we have only one definite article (the), rather than the complex set that, for instance, German has: der, die, das, den, dem, des.

 

[Justin Swanton]

Like Latin. Latin has no articles but nouns and verbs are all inflected, which means word order becomes a tool not for meaning but for emphases and other nuances.

 

[Montero]

Similarly, we have only one definite article (the), rather than the complex set that, for instance, German has: der, die, das, den, dem, des.

Thanks Ursa.
Yes, I remember those definite articles - one of the things that did my head in. Also remembering whether it was "auf" or "uber" with motion and the like. (I've forgotten the name of the grammatical rules, let alone what they were... ) I did find the noun derivation interesting - as in the origins of English - so window in French - fenetre (with circumflexes), fenster in German (both deriving from a Latin word) but in English the Anglo Saxon wind-door. And so on.

Saw a documentary years back about how it is thought that early English came into being - along the boundaries between the Celts and the Vikings - as a trade language with all the difficult bits like complex set of definite articles dropped. (Then of course came Norman French and what that brought.) And English is very flexible - it is amazing how varied it can be and still be understood (though sometimes with errors and repeats )