Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Question about a sentence from "The Great Gatsby"
392 views
Skip to first unread message
Yuxiang Tian
Aug 22, 2015, 10:05:55 PM8/22/15
to
Hi, I have a question regarding the following sentence from Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby:
"The none too savory ramifications by which Ella Kaye, the newspaper woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in a yacht, were common knowledge to the turgid sub-journalism of 1902."
This sentence appears in the following paragraph from Chapter 6:
"
Cody was fifty years old then, a product of the Nevada silver fields, of the Yukon, of every rush for metal since seventy-five. The transactions in Montana copper that made him many times a millionaire found him physically robust but on the verge of soft-mindedness, and, suspecting this, an infinite number of women tried to separate him from his money. The none too savory ramifications by which Ella Kaye, the newspaper woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in a yacht, were common knowledge to the turgid sub-journalism of 1902. He had been coasting along all too hospitable shores for five years when he turned up as James Gatz's destiny at Little Girls Bay.
"
Now, I think I more or less understand the meaning the author wanted to convey through that sentence, but I am confused by it grammatically.
So the unsavoury ramifications is the subject of the sentence, and "by which ... in a yacht" is a clause that modifies the subject ramifications, and the rest consist of the verb "were" and the object "common knowledge".
I believe the clause can be also re-arranged like this:
... ramifications which Ella Kaye, the newspaper woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in a yacht by, were ...
My confusion mainly comes from the preposition "by" here, I take it to mean that the woman used the ramifications as a means of achieving the goal of sending Dan Cody to the sea, however, this interpretation makes the sentence very logically confusing to me, as it intuitively seems to me the ramifications is referring to the consequence of the event that the woman sent the man to the sea, not a means through which the woman achieved that. Obviously something is wrong with my interpretation here, can someone kindly point it out?
Hopefully my question makes sense to you folks.
Thanks,
YT
"The none too savory ramifications by which Ella Kaye, the newspaper woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in a yacht, were common knowledge to the turgid sub-journalism of 1902."
This sentence appears in the following paragraph from Chapter 6:
"
Cody was fifty years old then, a product of the Nevada silver fields, of the Yukon, of every rush for metal since seventy-five. The transactions in Montana copper that made him many times a millionaire found him physically robust but on the verge of soft-mindedness, and, suspecting this, an infinite number of women tried to separate him from his money. The none too savory ramifications by which Ella Kaye, the newspaper woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in a yacht, were common knowledge to the turgid sub-journalism of 1902. He had been coasting along all too hospitable shores for five years when he turned up as James Gatz's destiny at Little Girls Bay.
"
Now, I think I more or less understand the meaning the author wanted to convey through that sentence, but I am confused by it grammatically.
So the unsavoury ramifications is the subject of the sentence, and "by which ... in a yacht" is a clause that modifies the subject ramifications, and the rest consist of the verb "were" and the object "common knowledge".
I believe the clause can be also re-arranged like this:
... ramifications which Ella Kaye, the newspaper woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in a yacht by, were ...
My confusion mainly comes from the preposition "by" here, I take it to mean that the woman used the ramifications as a means of achieving the goal of sending Dan Cody to the sea, however, this interpretation makes the sentence very logically confusing to me, as it intuitively seems to me the ramifications is referring to the consequence of the event that the woman sent the man to the sea, not a means through which the woman achieved that. Obviously something is wrong with my interpretation here, can someone kindly point it out?
Hopefully my question makes sense to you folks.
Thanks,
YT
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 22, 2015, 11:10:23 PM8/22/15
to
Let's untangle the sentence you started with.
1 Ella Kaye sent him [Dan Cody, you say] to sea in a yacht.
2 She used unsavory ramifications to do so. [surely that should be "machinations"?]
3 They were common knowledge in the tabloids.
4 In doing so she was acting like Mme de Maintenon. [an allusion that escapes me]
The "by" is untangled in my (2).
Yuxiang Tian
Aug 22, 2015, 11:21:45 PM8/22/15
to
1) ramifications of what?
2) how did she use ramifications to send the man to the sea?
Tony Cooper
Aug 22, 2015, 11:40:35 PM8/22/15
to
to mean "result", and that it is saying that Ella Kaye was able to
convince Cody to go to sea as a result of him being weakened by the
attempts of a number of fortune-seeking women.
She, like the Marquise de Maintenon (Married to Louis XIV, but not his
recognized wife), exercised unofficial influence.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Tony Cooper
Aug 22, 2015, 11:53:33 PM8/22/15
to
results, or consequences, of some action. Other actions can be taken
based on these results, or prevented by these results, but the
ramification itself is not something than can be said to be used.
To put it in a modern setting, North Korea is threatening to go to war
with South Korea. The ramifications of North Korea's threats may
result in actions that will be taken by the US in South Korea. The
ramifications of North Korea's threats may result in the cancellation
of some planned actions to further peace talks.
North Korea's threats are a ramification of South Korea's actions in
propaganda broadcasts.
(I have trouble with the use of "go to war" above. I think the two
nations are at war, and have been for some time, but are presently in
some hold pattern instead of active combat.)
Horace LaBadie
Aug 23, 2015, 12:33:43 AM8/23/15
to
In article <29432ac0-973d-4789...@googlegroups.com>,
consequences is more recent.
Yuxiang Tian <tian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:10:23 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 10:05:55 PM UTC-4, Yuxiang Tian wrote:
> > > Hi, I have a question regarding the following sentence from Fitzgerald's
> > > The Great Gatsby:
> > >
> > > "The none too savory ramifications by which Ella Kaye, the newspaper
> > > woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in
> > > a yacht, were common knowledge to the turgid sub-journalism of 1902."
> > >
> > > This sentence appears in the following paragraph from Chapter 6:
> > >
> > > "
> > > Cody was fifty years old then, a product of the Nevada silver fields, of
> > > the Yukon, of every rush for metal since seventy-five. The transactions
> > > in Montana copper that made him many times a millionaire found him
> > > physically robust but on the verge of soft-mindedness, and, suspecting
> > > this, an infinite number of women tried to separate him from his money.
> > > The none too savory ramifications by which Ella Kaye, the newspaper
> > > woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in
> > > a yacht, were common knowledge to the turgid sub-journalism of 1902. He
> > > had been coasting along all too hospitable shores for five years when he
> > > turned up as James Gatz's destiny at Little Girls Bay.
> > > "
SNIP
> On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:10:23 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 10:05:55 PM UTC-4, Yuxiang Tian wrote:
> > > Hi, I have a question regarding the following sentence from Fitzgerald's
> > > The Great Gatsby:
> > >
> > > "The none too savory ramifications by which Ella Kaye, the newspaper
> > > woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in
> > > a yacht, were common knowledge to the turgid sub-journalism of 1902."
> > >
> > > This sentence appears in the following paragraph from Chapter 6:
> > >
> > > "
> > > Cody was fifty years old then, a product of the Nevada silver fields, of
> > > the Yukon, of every rush for metal since seventy-five. The transactions
> > > in Montana copper that made him many times a millionaire found him
> > > physically robust but on the verge of soft-mindedness, and, suspecting
> > > this, an infinite number of women tried to separate him from his money.
> > > The none too savory ramifications by which Ella Kaye, the newspaper
> > > woman, played Madame de Maintenon to his weakness and sent him to sea in
> > > a yacht, were common knowledge to the turgid sub-journalism of 1902. He
> > > had been coasting along all too hospitable shores for five years when he
> > > turned up as James Gatz's destiny at Little Girls Bay.
> > > "
> > >
> > > Hopefully my question makes sense to you folks.
> >
> > No, it doesn't, but in 2015 there would not be a comma after "yacht."
> >
> > Let's untangle the sentence you started with.
> >
> > 1 Ella Kaye sent him [Dan Cody, you say] to sea in a yacht.
> >
> > 2 She used unsavory ramifications to do so. [surely that should be
> > "machinations"?]
> >
> > 3 They were common knowledge in the tabloids.
> >
> > 4 In doing so she was acting like Mme de Maintenon. [an allusion that
> > escapes me]
> >
> > The "by" is untangled in my (2).
>
>
> Thanks for your reply Peter, your (2) is where my confusion comes from, if
> it was "machinations" the sentence would have made sense to me, but with
> "ramifications" I am unclear about
> 1) ramifications of what?
> 2) how did she use ramifications to send the man to the sea?
Ramification just means a complexity of means or process. The meaning of
> > > Hopefully my question makes sense to you folks.
> >
> > No, it doesn't, but in 2015 there would not be a comma after "yacht."
> >
> > Let's untangle the sentence you started with.
> >
> > 1 Ella Kaye sent him [Dan Cody, you say] to sea in a yacht.
> >
> > 2 She used unsavory ramifications to do so. [surely that should be
> > "machinations"?]
> >
> > 3 They were common knowledge in the tabloids.
> >
> > 4 In doing so she was acting like Mme de Maintenon. [an allusion that
> > escapes me]
> >
> > The "by" is untangled in my (2).
>
>
> Thanks for your reply Peter, your (2) is where my confusion comes from, if
> it was "machinations" the sentence would have made sense to me, but with
> "ramifications" I am unclear about
> 1) ramifications of what?
> 2) how did she use ramifications to send the man to the sea?
consequences is more recent.
CDB
Aug 23, 2015, 9:06:42 AM8/23/15
to
On 22/08/2015 11:21 PM, Yuxiang Tian wrote:
Madame de Maintenon was the mistress and privately-acknowledged wife of
Louis the Fourteenth of France. She was reputed to have used her
position to influence some of his government's policies.
"Ramifications" is a puzzler. I'm almost tempted to wonder about a pun
on "ram", implying that she used an illicit sexual relationship with
Cody, or perhaps the procurement of sexual partners for him ("all too
hospitable shores"), to direct his actions. (But this is only speculation.)
Louis the Fourteenth of France. She was reputed to have used her
position to influence some of his government's policies.
"Ramifications" is a puzzler. I'm almost tempted to wonder about a pun
on "ram", implying that she used an illicit sexual relationship with
Cody, or perhaps the procurement of sexual partners for him ("all too
hospitable shores"), to direct his actions. (But this is only speculation.)
Yuxiang Tian
Aug 23, 2015, 9:33:10 AM8/23/15
to
"a subdivision of a complex structure or process perceived as comparable to a tree's branches" (definition from Google), the sentence becomes clear to me.
YT
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 23, 2015, 10:13:12 AM8/23/15
to
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:33:43 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie wrote:
> In article <29432ac0-973d-4789...@googlegroups.com>,
> Yuxiang Tian <tian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:10:23 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > 2 She used unsavory ramifications to do so. [surely that should be
> > > "machinations"?]
> Yuxiang Tian <tian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 22, 2015 at 11:10:23 PM UTC-4, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > 2 She used unsavory ramifications to do so. [surely that should be
> > > "machinations"?]
> > Thanks for your reply Peter, your (2) is where my confusion comes from, if
> > it was "machinations" the sentence would have made sense to me, but with
> > "ramifications" I am unclear about
> > 1) ramifications of what?
> > 2) how did she use ramifications to send the man to the sea?
>
> Ramification just means a complexity of means or process. The meaning of
> consequences is more recent.
More recent than 1925? Seems unlikely.
> > it was "machinations" the sentence would have made sense to me, but with
> > "ramifications" I am unclear about
> > 1) ramifications of what?
> > 2) how did she use ramifications to send the man to the sea?
>
> Ramification just means a complexity of means or process. The meaning of
> consequences is more recent.
Horace LaBadie
Aug 23, 2015, 11:23:22 AM8/23/15
to
In article <69f32d06-d425-4876...@googlegroups.com>,
More recent that the meaning of complexity of means or process.
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 23, 2015, 1:29:15 PM8/23/15
to
in the author's and readers' minds in 1925?
Horace LaBadie
Aug 23, 2015, 2:32:41 PM8/23/15
to
In article <c99cc0d0-43e1-43f9...@googlegroups.com>,
Why should I say it, when apparently it was in the author's, at least?
(Assuming, of course, that we have a true transcription of the text. I
haven't bothered to check.)
(Assuming, of course, that we have a true transcription of the text. I
haven't bothered to check.)
James Hogg
Aug 23, 2015, 2:51:44 PM8/23/15
to
"A consequence, an implication (freq. unwelcome or problematic)."
The earlier extended use is defined as "An offshoot; something that
develops from or grows out of something else; an extension, esp. of an
idea, concept, etc.; a subdivision or single part of a more complex
structure".
--
James
Paul Wolff
Aug 23, 2015, 5:18:26 PM8/23/15
to
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> posted:
Which superseded meaning? The original sense of ramifications that means
complex pathways is by no means superseded, even today. Isn't that the
one that Fitzgerald is after?
>is what would have been foremost
>in the author's and readers' minds in 1925?
We need a centenarian with a good memory.
--
Paul
complex pathways is by no means superseded, even today. Isn't that the
one that Fitzgerald is after?
>is what would have been foremost
>in the author's and readers' minds in 1925?
--
Paul
Paul Wolff
Aug 23, 2015, 5:18:26 PM8/23/15
to
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> posted:
Shorter Oxford on ramification:
1 A subdivision of a complex structure analogous to the branches of a
tree, as a network of blood vessels or branches of a river; a branch.
M17.
2 Each of many points of detail about a matter; a consequence, esp. when
unwelcome or problematic, a complication. M18.
J. D. Salinger I couldn't quite take in this information whole, let
alone consider its many possible ramifications. A. Powell The
ramifications of aristocratic life.
--
Paul
1 A subdivision of a complex structure analogous to the branches of a
tree, as a network of blood vessels or branches of a river; a branch.
M17.
2 Each of many points of detail about a matter; a consequence, esp. when
unwelcome or problematic, a complication. M18.
J. D. Salinger I couldn't quite take in this information whole, let
alone consider its many possible ramifications. A. Powell The
ramifications of aristocratic life.
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 23, 2015, 5:31:48 PM8/23/15
to
no longer carries that ancestral meaning.
> >is what would have been foremost
> >in the author's and readers' minds in 1925?
>
> We need a centenarian with a good memory.
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 23, 2015, 5:34:07 PM8/23/15
to
On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 5:18:26 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
reported first OED citation in 1925 highly suspect.
Horace LaBadie
Aug 23, 2015, 7:18:03 PM8/23/15
to
In article <952448f6-24eb-447e...@googlegroups.com>,
I suspect that Fitzgerald was alluding to some then-familiar description
of Maintenon from a biography or history that has since been forgotten.
of Maintenon from a biography or history that has since been forgotten.
Paul Wolff
Aug 24, 2015, 4:28:51 AM8/24/15
to
On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> posted:
>On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 5:18:26 PM UTC-4, Paul Wolff wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> posted:
>> >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:33:43 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie
>> On Sun, 23 Aug 2015, James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> posted:
>> >Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> On Sunday, August 23, 2015 at 12:33:43 AM UTC-4, Horace LaBadie
"Every standard entry bears at least one date, indicating
the earliest recorded use of the word. Combining entries
are also sometimes individually dated for the combining
form."
>and it makes the
>reported first OED citation in 1925 highly suspect.
>
>> J. D. Salinger I couldn't quite take in this information whole, let
>> alone consider its many possible ramifications. A. Powell The
>> ramifications of aristocratic life.
Paul
Ross
Aug 24, 2015, 6:19:14 AM8/24/15
to
of) senses 3a:
a. An offshoot; something that develops from or grows out of something else; an extension, esp. of an idea, concept, etc.; a subdivision or single part of a more complex structure. (citations begin with Johnson, 1755, Preface to the Dictionary)
b. A consequence, an implication (freq. unwelcome or problematic).
(citations begin with Lowell (Mass.) Sun, 1925)
Peter T. Daniels
Aug 24, 2015, 7:46:26 AM8/24/15
to
Principles"?
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Aug 24, 2015, 8:51:45 AM8/24/15
to
On Historical Principles_. The most recent of the two was printed in
1978. It is the Third Edition with revisions.
The entry for "ramification" is:
1. The action of process of ramifying 1760.
b. The branches of a tree collectively 1821.
2. A subdivision of a single part of a complex structure analogous
to the branches of a tre, esp. of veins, arteries and other parts
in animals and plants, and of rivers 1677.
b. transf. Of immaterial things 1755.
Perhaps later editions have been majorly rewritten.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Paul Wolff
Aug 24, 2015, 10:59:10 AM8/24/15
to
On Mon, 24 Aug 2015, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net>
posted:
Mine's the 6th edition, 2007. The previous edition was in 2002. I have
the 6th in both paper and electronic form. The Preface includes:
"We have taken advantage of the work in progress for
the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, notably
by incorporating their discoveries concerning earlier first
dates of use. For this edition of the Shorter we have been
able to antedate nearly 4,500 words and senses, among
them bog-standard, maestro, muggins, mujahideen, and phase.
In addition, many etymologies, especially for words of
non-European origin, have been revised."
Also
"As part of general revision, spelling and orthography
have been modernized throughout the text, in many
cases by the removal of hyphens in compound nouns.
This reflects the evidence of prevailing use and is in line
with treatment in the rest of the Oxford dictionaries
range. Although the Shorter is a historical dictionary that
includes words of the past as well as those of today, its
definitions are written in contemporary English, and we
have updated the defining language where appropriate.
Special attention has been given to sensitive terms relat-
ing to ethnicity, sexuality, and disability. To this end the
usage notes contained in around 1,000 entries have been
rewritten, and many new ones added."
--
Paul
posted:
the 6th in both paper and electronic form. The Preface includes:
"We have taken advantage of the work in progress for
the third edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, notably
by incorporating their discoveries concerning earlier first
dates of use. For this edition of the Shorter we have been
able to antedate nearly 4,500 words and senses, among
them bog-standard, maestro, muggins, mujahideen, and phase.
In addition, many etymologies, especially for words of
non-European origin, have been revised."
Also
"As part of general revision, spelling and orthography
have been modernized throughout the text, in many
cases by the removal of hyphens in compound nouns.
This reflects the evidence of prevailing use and is in line
with treatment in the rest of the Oxford dictionaries
range. Although the Shorter is a historical dictionary that
includes words of the past as well as those of today, its
definitions are written in contemporary English, and we
have updated the defining language where appropriate.
Special attention has been given to sensitive terms relat-
ing to ethnicity, sexuality, and disability. To this end the
usage notes contained in around 1,000 entries have been
rewritten, and many new ones added."
--
Paul
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Aug 24, 2015, 12:44:55 PM8/24/15
to
Ross
Aug 24, 2015, 6:09:47 PM8/24/15
to
who do have confirmed this.
>It's not "On Historical Principles"?
of senses. The problem in this case resulted from the fact that,
in the interests of Shorterness, they combined two sub-senses with
very different first dates and gave "M18" for the whole. (I assume
M stands for "mid"?)
Paul Wolff
Aug 25, 2015, 11:52:05 AM8/25/15
to
0 new messages