Jersey Girl wrote: ↑
Thu Jun 18, 2020 7:07 pm
Are you sure about that?
ETA: Whatever it is, that's how DCP writes. And I'm right. Totally right.
Yes. I am sure you are not looking at iambic pentameter. I am sure that you are right, too.
I will bold the giveaway that you are dealing with Daniel Peterson:
I really, really, really, REALLY, REALLY don't want your country (China) to be the principal topic of conversation here, or a major topic, or even a significant topic.
This is for many reasons, including considerations of both sanity and sanitation. You are also aware that I entered into an agreement with one of your advisors that I would attempt to tamp down tendencies for war to erupt between the United States and your regrettable country. I intend to keep that agreement. Indeed, I have kept it, in the sense that (as always) my policies very rarely even mention your unfortunate country. They focus on other matters. But your appearances here, and those of other emigrés from your country -- and, believe me, I can easily understand why you're desperately feeling the need for a better place! -- tend to call attention to your deplorable country and, quite understandably, to remind its victims here of its undesirable existence. I do not want that. I do not appreciate that.
Peterson's most prominent and constant tic is a tendency to insert adverbial phrases after the beginning of a subordinate clause, inserting them parenthetically, inverting their usual order in the sentence pattern, or needlessly isolating them by commas as if they were appositives when they are not. It has the effect of constant interruption in the flow of the sentence. It is a common feature of 19th periodic style, which was a byproduct of an education in the Greek and Latin classics. A periodic sentence, in simple terms, is one that begins a thought but goes a long way around before the thought is completed at the end of the sentence because numerous subordinate clauses will intervene, each adding information to round out the thought which will have some cue at the end of the sentences that links it back to the beginning (hence "periodic," which means "a circuit" or a "course" like a running track). Someone like G. K. Chesterton writes this way, and Peterson mentions him quite a bit. I get the feeling that Peterson imagines himself a sort of Mormon version of Chesterton, perhaps in more ways than one (weigh the comparison yourself, dear reader). Since Peterson does not have that deep classical education, or at any rate does not display it in the way he writes (as even classicists don't), one gets the feeling that he is imitating the feel of it by creating this sense of delay through overuse of commas and adverbial phrases that are just fluff.
Watch what happens to the first paragraph when I apply that same tic:
Peterson's most prominent tic is, constantly, a tendency to insert, after the beginning of a subordinate clause, adverbial phrases, parenthetically, inverting their usual order in the sentence pattern, or, as if they were appositives, isolating them by commas, when they are not.
"As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them."
—B. Redd McConkie