Skeletal and unkempt, he ranks Number One; Free-born and unrestrained, he's second to none.
We are informed of his superiority in general terms, not in the specific area of free-spiritedness. It is also implied that he is superior because of his free-spiritedness, which is not what the author wants to say.
I would much prefer your version:
In skeletalness and unkemptness, he ranks No. one; In undisciplinedness and liberalism, he's second to none.
I'm not quite sure myself, but I hope some of the following sentences are relevant to this discussion:
Always the smart one, he won the contest with ease.
A patriot at heart, he flys the flag of his motherland on October 1 every year.
Scholarly and meticulous, she compiled an accurate, detailed history of the local Miao people.
Not satified with the initial results, he continued his experiment.
Like a mad man, he attacked everyone in the room.
Young and delicate, she walks towards me with a meaningful smile.
ÎÒ×ܾõµÃ£¬ÕâÀïÓÃÐÎÈÝ´Ê»ò¸±´Ê¶¼²»ÄÜÓërank´îÅä¡£ÄúËù¾ÙµÄÀý×ÓÖУ¬½öÓÐÒ»¸öÓÃÐÎÈÝ´Ê£¬¾ÍÊÇ£º Young and delicate, she walks towards me with a meaningful smile. °ÑÕâ¾ä»°µ¹¹ýÀ´¾ÍÊÇ£ºShe, who's young and delicate, walks...¡£ÔÙ¿´Õâ¾ä£º Skeletal and unkempt, he ranks number one.µ¹¹ýÀ´ÊÇ£ºHe, who's skeletal and unkempt, ranks number one.ÕâÑù£¬Õû¾ä»°±ãÇ·ÍêÕû££²îÒ»¸ö²¹×ãÓï¡£ËùÒÔ£¬ÎҲŰÑËü»»³ÉÃû´Ê£ºIn skeletalness and unkemptness, he ranks No. one; In undisciplinedness and liberalism, he's second to none.µ«ÕâÑù×ö¶ÁÆðÀ´ÓֱȽÏÞÖ¿Ú£¬ËùÒԸijɣº So skeletal and unkempt is he number one. So undiscipline and sluggish is he second to none¡£ÕâÑù£¬¶ÁÆðÀ´ºÃÏóºÃÒ»µã¡£
Just back from a business errand. Sorry for the delay. Please don't take offence.¾ø²»ÊÇÏëµõÆðÀ´Âô¡£´ò¹¤×åÍùÍùÉí ²»ÓɼºÑ½£¬ÎªÍ¼Î±¥ÄÄÄÜÖÕÈÕÎÞÏÞÉÏÍø£¿Óлú»á¼û·ì²åÕëÒѾËã×ßÔËÁË¡£ÍûÒþ¾ýºÍ¸÷λº£º¡£
Let me try to respond to your queries about "subject complement". Please compare the following sentences first, paying special attention to the part that initiates each sentence:
1. Slowly but surely, the patient swallowed the food. 2. Slowly but undoubtedly, the dark clouds disappeared. 3. Slow but determined, he ended up successful in his career.
In (1) & (2), they are simply adverbial adjuncts that normally appear at the end of an SVOA- or SVA-type sentence. In both cases, the adverbs used are directly related semantically to the verbs in the main clauses, namely "swallowed" and "disappeared".
In (3), however, the "Slow but determined" has nothing directly to do with the verb phrase "ended up". Rather, they are just adjectives here used to define the subject of the sentence "he". We can expand the sentence into:
He was slow but determined, and (/ so) he ended up successful.
In this structure, "slow but determined" is called "subject complement". The complement is normally a noun phrase or an adjective phrase. Some of the sentences provided by laoliu are certainly relevant illustrations of such complements in similar cases:
* Always the smart one, he won the contest with ease. * Scholarly and meticulous, she compiled an accurate, detailed history of the local Miao people. * Not satisfied with the initial results, he continued his experiment. * Young and delicate, she walks towards me with a meaningful smile.
In my last posting, what I tried to do was call your attention to "subject complement" as distinct from adverbial. It doesn't matter whether you like to use the same term, but I'm sure such structures in English are by no means unfamiliar to you. They should be acceptable not only in prose, I believe. Hence, my version at issue: "Skeletal and unkempt, he ranks Number One. " may be interpreted as something like:
"He looks skeletal and unkempt, and he ranks Number One (in this respect). "
This might naturally lead to your version "In skeletalness and unkemptness, he ranks No. One." In my opinion, it is correct grammatically as a single sentence, but sounds very awkward indeed, as you also admitted. My version may be a little loose in structure, yet I am sure it is acceptably clear.
I never thought my translations could be anything "ranking Number One". Normally done in haste, in fact they often turn out faulty or even wrong on second thought. In my other lines, for example:
"When he left, he strode out unhurriedly in a swagger; When he came, he just blew in like a waft of cloud."
the "waft" doesn't sound to go well with "cloud". So if there is a chance for correction, I would now replace it with "puff". Hence,
When he left, he strode out unhurriedly in a swagger; When he came, he just blew in like a puff of cloud.
I hope my explanation will clarify some of your doubts. Thanks for the discussion.
P.S. For more info about "complements", please refer to "A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language" by Randolph Quirk et al.
Hence, my version at issue: "Skeletal and unkempt, he ranks Number One. " may be interpreted as something like:
"He looks skeletal and unkempt, and he ranks Number One (in this respect). "
Unquote
I don't think that one is expected to infer that "he" is the number one only when it comes to being skeletal and unkempt. As I see it, when the subject complement is removed, the sentence should still make good sense. "[H]e ranks Number One" does make sense, but "he" ranks Number One, by default, in general terms.
Also, it appears that in most cases the characteristics of the subject as described by the subject complement do have some bearing on the action of the verb. In the sentence "Slow but determined, he ended up successful in his career," "his" eventual success was at least partially due to "his" determination. I can't think of any situation where a subject complement was used and some rhetoric effect was not desired.
Sorry you're not yet convinced. Let me elaborate a bit and see if you could be taken a little closer to what I believe. You don't have to agree with me. I just feel obliged to make my point a little clearer.
The central issue under discussion here, as I see it, has to do with the syntactic and semantic roles of VERBLESS CLAUSES in complex sentence structures, in which "subject complement" could play a part.
As a means of syntactic compression, verbless clauses are valuable particularly in written prose, where the writer has the leisure to revise for compactness. E.g.
1. She was born of humble parentage. She began her working life in a bakery. => * Of humble parentage, she began her working life in a bakery. (i) * Born of humble parentage, she began her working life in a bakery. (ii) * A woman of humble parentage, she began her working life in a bakery. (iii)
2. She was slow but determined. She ended up successful in her career. => * Slow but determined, she ended up successful in her career. (iv)
3. He was sixty years old. He was lonely. He lived in a big house in Brooklyn. => * A lonely man at sixty, he lived in a big house in Brooklyn. (v) * Lonely at sixty, he lived in a big house in Brooklyn. (vi)
The initial parts of all the bulleted sentences above are VERBLESS CLAUSES. They vary in structure, but one thing in common is that none of them has a finite verb. There are no tense markers, no modal auxiliaries, no subordinating conjunctions, and often no subjects. The meanings associated with tense, aspect, and mood are to be recovered only from the sentential context.
Syntactically, most of such verbless clauses may be treated as adverbial to their respective main clauses. As we can see, the verbless clause is sometimes reduced to its minimum of a single complement.
What is the semantic relation between the verbless clause and the main clause, then? Since the verbless clause is always expandable (or restorable) to a finite clause, which is often an adverbial clause, we are tempted to name its role in the complex sentence. Is it a clause of reason? Or of condition? Or of contrast or something? … Unfortunately, it is not always easy to pinpoint exactly what it is, though we may be absolutely sure of the interrelationship in meaning between the two clauses. In (2), for instance, there certainly is some kind of relation of reason between the two clauses. But in (3), this kind of relation becomes ambiguous. Yet for the sake of compactness, the structure is very often used in written prose, with the writer assuming that the meaning is clear enough for the reader to figure out.
Now back to my controversial "Skeletal and unkempt, he ranks Number One." Based on my discussion above, may I just expand the sentence like this:
4. Skeletal and unkempt, he ranks Number One. => * Being skeletal and unkempt, he ranks Number One. (vii) * He looks skeletal and unkempt. He ranks Number One. (viii)
Please note that I never said that "He ranks Number One ONLY when it comes to being skeletal and unkempt. " What is definitely present here, though, is some kind of a causal relationship between the verbless clause and the main clause, a little vague as it may be. If (vii) is acceptable and clear in writing, the removal of the "being"is no doubt acceptable for the sake of further compactness.
You are right if you say that where a verbless clause (NOTE: Not only subject complement!) is used it is always used to achieve certain rhetoric effect. That's precisely why I insist on the acceptability ( By NO means perfectness!) of my lines.
Thanks for the queries. The discussion of such a topic would deserve more than a whole chapter. For a comprehensive analysis of verbless clauses, adverbial clauses, as well as complements, if interested, please refer to Chapters 14-17 of A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language by Randolph Quirk et al. (Longman 1985)
1) He is skeletal and unkempt; 2) Overall, He ranks Number One; 3) Being skeletal and unkempt might have contributed to his superiority.
ÉÏ´ÎÄú˵£º
[M]y version at issue: "Skeletal and unkempt, he ranks Number One. " may be interpreted as something like:
"He looks skeletal and unkempt, and he ranks Number One (in this respect). "
Õâ´ÎÄú˵£º
Please note that I never said that "He ranks Number One ONLY when it comes to being skeletal and unkempt. " What is definitely present here, though, is some kind of a causal relationship between the verbless clause and the main clause, a little vague as it may be.