Page:The king's English (IA kingsenglish00fowlrich).pdf/331

Rh

The missing subject and (with one exception) the missing verb of a subordinate clause can be supplied only from the sentence to which it is subordinate. The exception is the verb 'to be'. We can say 'The balls, when wet, do not bounce', 'When in doubt, play trumps', because the verb to be supplied is are, and the subject is that of the principal sentence. Other violations of the rule occur, but are scarcely tolerable even in the spoken language. The following are undesirable instances:

For, though summer, I knew...Mr. Rochester would like to see a cheerful hearth.–C..

We can supply was, but not it; the natural subject is I.

I have now seen him, and though not for long, he is a man who speaks with Bismarckian frankness.–Times.

'Though I did not see him for long', we are meant to understand. But the though clause is not subordinate to the sentence containing that subject and verb: and always joins coordinates and announces the transition from one coordinate to another. Consequently, the though clause must be a part (a subordinate part) of the second coordinate, and must draw from that its subject and verb: 'though he is not a man of Bismarckian frankness for long,...'. Even if we could supply I saw with the clause in its present place, we should still have the absurd implication that the man's habitual frankness (not the writer's perception of it) depended on the duration of the interview. We offer three conjectural emendations: 'I have now seen him, though not for long; and he is a man who...'; 'I have now seen him, and though I did not see him for long, I perceived that he was a man who...'; 'I have now seen him, and though I did not see him for long, I found out what he thought; for he is a man who...'.

Claim is not followed by an infinitive except when the subject of claim is also that of the infinitive. Thus, I claim to