Worn out, he will go to work.
Masa
2)Worn out, he will go to work.
1) There's no problem with the first sentence: He will go to work
worn out.
So, my question is about 2) "Worn out, he will go to work".
How do you feel when you hear or read this sentence?
Does it sound strange? Or you think it's not proper English?
What do you think?
Robert Lieblich
I think it's correct English but uncommon in today's usage. I'd use
version 1 but not scorn those who use version 2. A third version would
be "Although [or "though"] worn out, he will go to work." And yet
another is "Although he is worn out, he will go to work.
English frequently offers many ways to say the same thing. Matters of
style and taste often enter into the choice.
(I assume we agree that there's no such thing as "working worn out."
Otherwise sentence 1 would be ambiguous.)
--
Bob Lieblich
Pretty worn out himself
Don Phillipson
news:340bcbde-57c9-4c0f...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Both are grammatically correct. They differ in nuance.
#1 simply describes the condition in which he will go
to work. #2 emphasizes the tiredness (by placing it first
in the sentence: this is one of the standard rhetorical
methods by which English adds emphasis.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Skitt
Maybe it's just me, but the "Worn out, he will go to work" sentence suggests
to me that he will go to work because he is worn out. Maybe he has been
arguing with his boss for hours, instead of working. Worn out, he will go
to work. Something like that.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Mark Brader
> 1)He will go to work worn out.
> 2)Worn out, he will go to work.
>
> 1) There's no problem with the first sentence: He will go to work
> worn out.
>
> So, my question is about 2) "Worn out, he will go to work".
>
> How do you feel when you hear or read this sentence?
> Does it sound strange?
The construction is fine, but that particular sentence seems a little
odd. I think it's because when that construction is used with a verb
in the future tense, the adjectival part usually describes a reason
for the action. So "Broke, he will turn to crime" is fine, but being
worn out is not a reason to go to work.
This does not apply in the past tense: "Worn out, he went to work" is
perfectly normal.
> Or you think it's not proper English?
Remember that questions require an inversion. You mean "Or do you
think...?"
--
Mark Brader "The worst things may happen, including a program
Toronto that works fine on your computer but crashes
m...@vex.net on your customer's machine." -- Dan Pop
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Eric Walker
[...]
> Maybe it's just me, but the "Worn out, he will go to work" sentence
> suggests to me that he will go to work because he is worn out. Maybe he
> has been arguing with his boss for hours, instead of working. Worn out,
> he will go to work. Something like that.
Concur. The structure strongly implies a cause-and-effect relation. One
could construct a context for the sentence in which such a relation
actually exists, but it would be strained; in normal circumstances, it
would be an infelicitous and arguably misleading way of stating what the
first sentence states.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
John O'Flaherty
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:53:39 -0800, Skitt wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Maybe it's just me, but the "Worn out, he will go to work" sentence
>> suggests to me that he will go to work because he is worn out. Maybe he
>> has been arguing with his boss for hours, instead of working. Worn out,
>> he will go to work. Something like that.
>
>Concur. The structure strongly implies a cause-and-effect relation. One
>could construct a context for the sentence in which such a relation
>actually exists, but it would be strained; in normal circumstances, it
>would be an infelicitous and arguably misleading way of stating what the
>first sentence states.
I can imagine without strain using "Worn out, he will go to work." as
part of a narrative.
--
John