https://web.archive.org/web/20240725094047/https://blog.oup....

The interesting thing is that in English this generally pushes you to put short phrases before long phrases, as described in the article, but in languages with other word orders you can get the opposite effect. For example in Japanese the verb is always the last thing in a sentence, and so the way to keep related words together is actually to put long phrases before short phrases. So you'll often get sentences with structures like [[very long object] [short subject] verb].

This is the kind of sentence up with which the Plain English Campaign did not put.

Weight is harmed by the widespread "rule" against using the passive voice (which is as bad a rule as "said is dead"). I'd say that topic (vs comment) is most important, then agent (vs action/patient), with subject (vs predicate/object) last and thus not sensible to make rules about.

Modifying the author’s last example: “A jug was on the table. The jug was big, red, and full of milk.”

It might sound like a children’s book, but since I mostly write emails, I can expect the recipients to read the subject line, one question or request, and one sentence of context. Any more context is for the interested reader.

I was taught to write that way in journalism classes (inverted pyramid), but it looks like “Bottom Line Up-Front” is a better fit for 2-way communications.

What does this hypothesis say to the German language kicking verbs to the end of the sentence?

Ive heard native Germans say they like and even prefer this feature to English’s handling, saying they feel like it allows them time when speaking to pick a good verb for the sentence.

— yakshaving_jgt, reputable HN commenter

“It was nice of John and Mary to come and visit us the other day,” is 8 words before the verb come.

“For John and Mary to come and visit us the other day was nice,” is only five, focused solely on the subject with no additional information (how the author felt about their visit)

Yet personally the second one reads easier for me, so I guess that reinforces the point to me specifically? Although I agree it’s unusual.

> The trouble began suddenly on the thirty-first of October 1998.

> The trouble began on the thirty-first of October 1998 suddenly.

sure, but natural isn't what a writer who is trying to persuade is going for. 'suddenly' in this example has a polarized value. as an adverb observation it inserts the writer into the story, which either has tremendous meaning, or literally none at all. I would even say that the second example has a more masculine voice than the first because the "trouble began suddenly" usage is careless, non-commital, and low risk.

A lot of what makes reading satisfying is pushing values onto the readers mental stack and popping them off in surprising ways, not unlike comedy setups or waiting for the drop. while I can be a bit turgid, I would have written this as:

"The trouble began on the thirty-first of October 1998, suddenly."

Adding the comma gives you suspense to resolve by popping it off with an example of suddenness. e.g.

"The doctors said it was a possible side effect of the seizure medication, but it was as though a resevoir of something stable and forgotten had breached. Victims in collisions with head injuries often have behavioural changes, they said, but he was not a victim, or even a perpetrator. what is the opposite, a protagonist? 'shopping cart jousting' was the line in his file adjacent to a generic billing code reserved for cases of decidedly other. Not a victim, but perhaps, a Champion."

the comma pushes us down into the story, and the whole stack can be popped by the champion punchline.

Incidentally, the two sentences don't really say the same thing -- the first is saying John and Mary did something nice for the speaker, and the second is so weirdly phrased it's hard to figure out what it's intending to say but it's hard to interpret it as having the same meaning as the first. It would need to end "...was nice of them" to be that, I think.

English speakers prefer to say it was nice of <very long phrase>. Instead of <very long phrase> was nice. The <very long phrase> is John and Mary to come and visit us the other day.

My theory is that by keeping the subject and verb short, it has less cognitive load on the listener as they know early where the conversation is going. In other words bottom line up front.

For example, this sounds strange to my ear. The right honorable gentleman who had served in the US House of Representatives and had just been floated for an even higher ranking office has been dogged by accusations of sexual impropriety.

I would phrase it as. Although dogged by accusations of sexual impropriety, the right honorable gentleman has just been floated for an even higher ranking office after serving in the US House of Representatives.

This makes the difference between the two sentences very pronounced.

“It was nice of John and Mary to visit us the other day”

"I enjoyed John and Mary's visit yesterday."

I used to feel the same way, that surprises should be saved to the end, for general non-mystery-thriller writing — including technical writing. I’ve changed my mind and agree with the author now. I think it’s better, in both writing and conversation, to put what you want to say up front, to start with the punchline, and let the reader drill down rather than pulling them down. It’s better to use fewer clauses, and make sentences more straightforward. I often don’t succeed at this, so don’t take my comment as an example of practicing what I preach. ;)

Forcing little surprises everywhere to me feels like one of those curved sidewalks in a park. They’re maybe cute once, the first time, and then forever after, especially when you’re trying to get somewhere, they are obnoxious and slow me down.

Personally I prefer ‘the trouble began suddenly’ because putting suddenly at the end is splitting the verb and adverb apart and shoving a long subject in the middle. To me it feels much better to place suddenly next to the verb began that it applies to. I do not agree with the claim that either sentence feels more meaningful or that there’s a gendered voice. That’s completely subjective and power of suggestion. You could argue exactly the opposite, and it wouldn’t be any more right or wrong.

It does not sound masculine to me whatsoever.

It just sounds awkward.

Suddenly, the trouble began... The trouble suddenly began...

Each sound more normal to me with the second one being the more natural

You could also make the argument that the second is more feminine, as it is non-committal and low-risk, something indicative of “hedging” that women often do.