Subject – Verb – Complement Separations

1a. The trial court's conclusion that the defendants made full disclosure of all relevant information bearing on the value of Knaebel's stock is clearly erroneous.

Readers expect every grammatical subject will be followed almost

immediately by its verb. SUBJECT –VERB

SUBJECT -- (interrupt, interrupt, interrupt) -- VERB

SUBJECT, however, VERB. . . .

SUBJECT, except on Tuesdays, VERB. . . .

SUBJECT, except on Tuesdays, but not if it is raining, unless it had also rained on the previous Monday, VERB. . . .

1a. The trial court's conclusion that the defendants made full disclosure of all relevant information bearing on the value of Knaebel’s stock is clearly erroneous.

1b The trial court's conclusion is clearly erroneous . . .

1c The trial court clearly erred in concluding that …

1d. The trial court erroneously concluded that ...

1b The trial court's conclusion is clearly erroneous . . .

. . . that the defendants made full disclosure . . .

1e. . . . that the defendants fully disclosed all relevant information bearing on the value of Knaebel’s stock

-- . . . defendants had fully disclosed all the relevant information . . .

-- . . .defendants had fully disclosed everything they knew . . .

1st clause

a. The trial court clearly erred …

b. The trial court erroneously concluded . . .

c. The trial court's conclusion was clearly erroneous . . .

2nd clause

x. defendants had fully disclosed all the relevant information ...

y. defendants had fully disclosed everything they knew . . .

We can mix and match from these six combinations: a+x; a+y; b+x; b+y; c+x; c+y

1f. The trial court clearly erred in concluding that the defendants fully disclosed everything they knew that was relevant to the value of Knaebel’s stock.

(1) the lawyer is quite sure he will never have to argue before that trial court again, and

(2) the lawyer will proceed to discuss both what the defendants disclosed and what the defendants knew

1a. The trial court's conclusion that the defendants made full disclosure of all relevant information bearing on the value of Knaebel’s stock is clearly erroneous.

1f. The trial court clearly erred in concluding that the defendants fully disclosed everything they knew that was relevant to the value of Knaebel’s stock.

There are at least three more reasons (1f) reads with so much more ease than (1a):

-- in (1f), no piece of information arrives for which we are not already somewhat prepared;

-- in addition, every new arrival seems to “lean forward” with possibilities as to where we might go from here; and

-- we continually find ourselves actually going to one of those advertised places.

The trial court . . . (“Well, what did they do?”)

clearly erred . . . (“Made a mess of things, did they? How did they do that?”)

in concluding. . . (“In concluding what?”)

that the defendants … ("And what did they do?”)

fully disclosed . . . (“What did they disclose?”)

everything they knew . . . (“Knew? About what?”)

that was relevant . . . (“Relevant to what?")

to the value of Knaebel’s stock. (“Ah, yes.”)

2. Any assertion that chemical “retesting” is a valid technique but because of a time lag has not been recognized by the scientific community is untenable.

S - V separation is common in professional prose, often resulting from an overdeveloped defensive posture. A subject-verb unit in English can convey a sense of completeness; premature completeness can be open to attack as oversimplification. To defend against this vulnerability, it seems prudent to insert the necessary qualifications before the arrival of the verb.

3a. Whether Congress intended X has long been a matter of debate.

Now spell out the “X.”

3b. Whether Congress intended to include interspousal wiretapping within the scope of prohibited acts under Title III has long been a matter of debate.

Then qualify it, being careful to have the qualification in place before the verb gets a chance to bring the sentence to closure:

3c. Whether Congress intended to include interspousal wiretapping within the scope of prohibited acts under Title III, when no deleterious use was made of the surreptitious products, has long been a matter of debate.

The problem gets serious when this method for qualification-by-insertion is allowed to repeat itself -- under the reasoning of “it worked once, so why not again?”

3d. Whether Congress intended to include interspousal wiretapping within the scope of prohibited acts under Title III, when no deleterious use was made or was threatened to be made of the surreptitious products, has long been a matter of debate.

and again . . .

3e. Whether Congress intended to include interspousal wiretapping within the scope of prohibited acts under Title III, when no deleterious use was made or was threatened to be made of the surreptitious products, and the results were no more serious than would have been the case had the third party been listening in on an extension, has long been a matter of debate.

3f. Whether Congress intended to include interspousal wiretapping within the scope of prohibited acts under Title III, when no deleterious use was made or was threatened to be made of the surreptitious products, and the results were no more serious than would have been the case had the third party been listening in on an extension, and insert here any of the other arguments that you might plan to bring up somewhere else in the memo, brief, or letter, and want to be sure not to leave out at this point because who knows what might be considered of primary importance at some later date and you do not want to appear to have missed any of the salient points, has long been a matter of debate.

8. And so my friends, I give you a man who . . . , a man who. . ., a man who . .. , a man who . . . - I give you, my friends, -- the next president of these United States of America, - Tennessee's favourite son, --- Richard ---- P.---- BAX -TER.

2. Any assertion that chemical “retesting” is a valid technique but because of a time lag has not been recognized by the scientific community is untenable.

10a. Similarly, in Weaver, the D.C. Court of AppealsS1 heldV1 thatT1 the qualifying wordS2 “estimate” used in conjunction with the stipulations and conditions thatT2 the quantitiesS3 wereV3 “to be used to canvass bids” and “not to be the basis for any payment by the ultimate consumer of the products” and thatT3 paymentsS4 would be madeV4 “only for actual quantities of work completed,” transformedV2 the contract into a requirements contract.

10a. Similarly, in Weaver, the D.C. Court of AppealsS1 heldV1 thatT1 the qualifying wordS2 “estimate” transformedV2 the contract into a requirements contract . . .

10c. Similarly, in Weaver, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that the qualifying word “estimate” transformed the contract into a requirements contract because it was used in conjunction with the following stipulations and conditions:

1) The quantities were “to be used to canvass bids”;

2) They were “not to be the basis for any payment by the ultimate consumer of the products”; and

3) Payments would be made “only for actual quantities of work completed.”

1) How long is the separation? (If it is only a word or two, most readers will not feel burdened. If it is two or three lines long, most readers will be taxed to or beyond their limit of sustained concentration.) 

2) How difficult is it to comprehend the substance of the interruptive material? (Difficult material can make even the shortest of interruptions problematic. Crystal-clear material or extremely familiar material can make even the longer interruptions seem smooth sailing.)

3) How difficult is it during the interruption to make sense of the part of the sentence that preceded it? (The more certain we are of the identity of the delayed information, the easier it is to attend to the material causing the delay and to remain aware of the material at the beginning.) 

4) Is anything to be gained from interrupting the syntax at this point? (Sometimes the writer has good reasons for delaying the arrival of the expected syntactic resolution: Interrupting the syntax might neatly yet subtly indicate to the reader the subservient quality of the interrupting information.)

The worst S-V-C interruption is that which contains the material the writer wished the reader to emphasize most. By locating words between a subject and verb (or between a verb and its object), the writer is signalling the reader to proceed quickly through that material, as if it were parenthetical. The very location of that material pronounces its relative insignificance. If the material is actually worthy of great emphasis, then its location belies its significance.