Reply
Mon 23 May, 2011 01:49 am
The sentence "And this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897" apparently means "And that this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897," so that the whole clause " that this was the manner of dog Buck" could serve as the subject of the second "was."
Do you feel comfortable to leave "that" out here?
Context:
His father, Elmo, a huge St. Bernard, had been the Judge's inseparable companion, and Buck bid fair to follow in the way of his father. He was not so large--he weighed only one hundred and forty pounds--for his mother, She, had been a Scotch shepherd dog. Nevertheless, one hundred and forty pounds, to which was added the dignity that comes of good living and universal respect, enabled him to carry himself in right royal fashion. During the four years since his puppyhood he had lived the life of a sated aristocrat; he had a fine pride in himself, was even a trifle egotistical, as country gentlemen sometimes become because of their insular situation. But he had saved himself by not becoming a mere pampered house dog. Hunting and kindred outdoor delights had kept down the fat and hardened his muscles; and to him, as to the cold-tubbing races, the love of water had been a tonic and a health preserver.
And this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897, when the Klondike strike dragged men from all the world into the frozen North. But Buck did not read the newspapers, and he did not know that Manuel, one of the gardener's helpers, was an undesirable acquaintance. Manuel had one besetting sin. He loved to play Chinese lottery. Also, in his gambling, he had one besetting weakness--faith in a system; and this made his damnation certain. For to play a system requires money, while the wages of a gardener's helper do not lap over the needs of a wife and numerous progeny.
@oristarA,
No. You are over-analysing this, and getting mixed up because of it.
Quote:And this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897
This just means: This was what Buck (the dog) was like in 1897.
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
No. You are over-analysing this, and getting mixed up because of it.
Quote:And this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897
This just means: This was
what Buck (the dog) was like in 1897.
The grammar that the "what" can be omitted here is new to me.
Thank you.
@oristarA,
Quote:The sentence "And this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897" apparently means "And that this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897," so that the whole clause " that this was the manner of dog Buck" could serve as the subject of the second "was."
The manner of the dog Buck was this. (this refers to what has gone before.)
"that" is not needed and seems grammatically incorrect since this refers to the previous paragraph.
@parados,
parados wrote:
Quote:The sentence "And this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897" apparently means "And that this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897," so that the whole clause " that this was the manner of dog Buck" could serve as the subject of the second "was."
The manner of the dog Buck was this. (this refers to what has gone before.)
"that" is not needed and seems grammatically incorrect since this refers to the previous paragraph.
And this was
that the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897.
The clause "the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897" is served as the object there?
@oristarA,
And this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897.
The sentence "And this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897" apparently means "And that this was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897," so that the whole clause " that this was the manner of dog Buck" could serve as the subject of the second "was."
================
The author could have used either this or that, Ori, but not both.
And this [that which I've just described] was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897.
And that, [the aforementioned] was the manner of dog Buck was in the fall of 1897.