1
   

Run through

 
 
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2004 09:19 pm
(1) I suspect "run through" is not treated as a compund noun below, that is, the predicate in the clause " that he runs through his brutish physical insensibility" is the verb run, while "through his..." is just a preposition construction. The writer meant "the dangers/alcohols has been run by him".

(2) Struck? Does it mean "crash into"?

(3) "and in my case, to be tempted, however slightly, was to fall."
The subject here is "to be tempted"?

Context:
I do not suppose that when a drunkard reasons with himself upon his vice, he is once out of five hundred times affected by the dangers that he runs through his brutish physical insensibility; neither had I, long as I had considered my position, made enough allowance for the complete moral insensibility and insensate readiness to evil which were the leading characters of Edward Hyde. Yet it was by these that I was punished. My devil had been long caged, he came out roaring. I was conscious, even when I took the draught, of a more unbridled, a more furious propensity to ill. It must have been this, I suppose, that stirred in my soul that tempest of impatience with which I listened to the civilities of my unhappy victim; I declare at least, before God, no man morally sane could have been guilty of that crime upon so pitiful a provocation; and that I struck in no more reasonable spirit than that in which a sick child may break a play-thing. But I had voluntarily stripped myself of all those balancing instincts by which even the worst of us continues to walk with some degree of steadiness among temptations; and in my case, to be tempted, however slightly, was to fall.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 745 • Replies: 7
No top replies

 
desertartist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2004 09:51 pm
1) "Through" does not act as a preposition here in any proper sense. "To run through" is an idiom. Traditional grammar does not deal well with the ubiquitous propensity of modern English to tack what are usually considered prepositons onto verbs to create new meanings. I worked on one grammar in college that referred to these words as "verb particles."

2) "Struck" here means "attacked."

3) Yes. It is an infinitive acting as a subject.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Mar, 2004 10:57 pm
Thanks desertartist.

(1) I've checked out all definitions of the idiom "run through" before posting. Do you think what definition should it be here?

(2) Whom did he attack? Does it meant "whoever he would attack"?

(3) I didn't get "to be tempted was to fall". What I understood is that Jekyll did have been tempted, not "to fall". Perhaps because I didn't get "however slightly" properly.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2004 12:06 am
It is probably not a question of language. Should I have to learn how to crack a case such as Dr.Jekyll and Mr Hyde? Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2004 02:20 am
Hi Oristar

Gosh, you are studying difficult texts for a foreigner!

Taking your numbered points

3. Yes. The sentence "To be tempted was to fall" means "I was tempted, and I gave in"

2. "Struck" is from "strike" and here it means "I hit out". You will have to read the whole tale to learn what he attacked, I can't remember.

1. This has been misunderstood by you and the previous contributor.
"...the dangers that he runs through his brutish physical insensibility..." means "..the dangers that he risks BECAUSE OF his brutish physical insensibility..."

Okay? Your English appears to be improving a lot, by the way. Well done.

McT
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2004 04:26 am
Hello McTag,

(1) According to your explanation, I got this:

Runs = risks; through = because of. That is, at least I've guessed it right that I said "run through" was not a compound noun here.

(2) Yes.

(3) If so, the sentence is actually "to be tempted, and I was to fall". I could not get why the writer could leave out the subject "I". What is this grammar?

Thanks for your reply.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2004 05:15 am
oristarA wrote:

(3) If so, the sentence is actually "to be tempted, and I was to fall". I could not get why the writer could leave out the subject "I". What is this grammar?


Difficult to explain, this.
It concerns the use of the infinitive form of the verb.
It may be best explained by the use of other examples:

To know her is to love her (because she is such a lovely person; meaning, all those who know her, automatically love her)

To do is to know. (meaning, if you actually do something yourself, you know and understand it, and you don't forget it easily.)

Therefore the phrase "to be tempted was to fall" means simply "I did not resist the temptation, instead I gave in to it".

Please understand however, that this is rather poetic and "flowery" English. Additionally, it is a bit old-fashioned.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Mar, 2004 08:07 am
Well explained, McTag!

Got it clearly now. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Run through
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/03/2024 at 01:20:13