It's impossible to read this intelligibly either aloud or to oneself. Now if someone could dig up the original script for "Victory Through Air Power" (or "Victory through Airpower," as the case may be), there might be something to discuss here. This becomes a problem when we try to draw conclusions about the author's education, as graphic artists are, on average, highly unreliable narrators of contemporary practice. The greater the number of hands that touch text between author and reader, the likelier it is for someone-a graphic artist, for example-to subvert the author's intent through miscorrection. I don't know if this sort of thinking would have been operative in 1943.
COMMA AFTER NAMELY HOW TO
Perhaps there is also a sort of linguistic "instinct" that recognizes the separation of subject and verb by the phrase "in the past," finds it suspect, and seeks to remedy the perceived problem with punctuation, again without quite remembering how to do it. I suspect it is a consequence of partially-remembered rules. I continue to see this sort of comma placement among young adults in 2010. In 1943, many writers would have learned writing by imitating writers of the 19th century, for whom this sort of construction was natural (as has been discussed many times on this board). Perhaps this author was mentally hearing a lengthening of the end of the word past (which I believe would very often be perceived as a pause). I know it's not standard to separate subject and verb with a comma, but I've seen at least one instance where it was clearly motivated-probably by the unconscious desire for it to be read the way the writer was presumably hearing it in his head, namely with a topic contour (B accent) on the subject. Is "in the past" supposed to be parenthetical? If so, there should be another comma after "country."
I don't have any trouble with a non-restrictive reading here, so I see no punctuation problem.
0 kommentar(er)
