1

While wasting time on the internet (as I am wont to do), I came across a video in which somebody was criticizing a blog-post and corrected the statement

  • *Keith does not a hint take.

supplying his corrected version

  • **A hint does Keith not take.

with the added explanation that the first sentence implies that there is a hint not taking Keith, unlike his phrasing. In either case, the intended connotation is supposed to be that of the statement

  • Keith does not take a hint.

Do either of the above statements carry this meaning?

To my ears, the first statement seems perfectly comprehensible and does not appear to flip subject and object, while the second seems convoluted. Maybe something like "A hint Keith does not take" is something more along the lines the critic was going for? At any rate, I would appreciate an explanation as to which of the above statements are grammatical and/or carry their intended meaning.

Edit: Just ran into my old post and was curious. The video I was talking about is here.

Ben Grossmann
  • 361
  • 2
    English is pretty flexible about inverted word order, and any of those phrasings are comprehensible. However, I far prefer the original phrasing to that person's "correction." – Bradd Szonye Aug 26 '13 at 18:42
  • 2
    I suspect that the original writer was creating a variation of the "xxxx does not a yyyy make" pattern. Here is a discussion of this pattern: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/27420/why-is-xxxx-doth-not-a-yyyy-make-considered-valid-english – Shoe Aug 26 '13 at 18:52
  • @Shoe I have a feeling you're right. Thank you for the link! – Ben Grossmann Aug 26 '13 at 19:12
  • 4
    “A hint does Kieth not take” sounds absolutely bizarre to me. It is grammatically correct, of course, but if I heard it used in a conversation, I would probably have to have it repeated before I’d grasp what was being said. Incidentally, the person who did the ‘correcting’ here is absolutely and utterly wrong that a hint is not taking Kieth in the first statement. That is, in fact, not even a possible interpretation: it would have to be “Kieth does a hint not take” for that to become possible. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Aug 26 '13 at 20:32
  • Um, er, Keith? – tchrist Aug 26 '13 at 21:44
  • @tchrist, considering how oddly these people appear to speak, I wouldn’t be surprised if Kieth actually spells his name this way. You know, like Le-ah (pronounced ‘Ledasha’) and her ilk. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Aug 26 '13 at 21:53
  • @tchrist that was in fact my spelling mistake; I don't know how I didn't notice it earlier. And yes, sometimes the dash isn't silent :). Janus: I'm inclined to agree with your take on that. – Ben Grossmann Aug 26 '13 at 22:52
  • 1
    I would have said that both versions were wrong and that it should be "Kieth doth not a hint take." – TrevorD Aug 26 '13 at 22:57
  • @TrevorD that's an interesting point. In Elizabethan English, is there a distinction between "does" and "doth", or any significance to the general pattern of adding a "-th" or "-eth" as a verb suffix? – Ben Grossmann Aug 26 '13 at 23:01
  • My comment was partly 'tongue in cheek'. I regret I can't answer any of your questions, but have you looked at the question that Shoe links to in his comment above? – TrevorD Aug 26 '13 at 23:08
  • @TrevorD quite droll, then. I did see the linked question, and it was very helpful. I might post another question about that suffix later on. – Ben Grossmann Aug 26 '13 at 23:40
  • In my opinion both the "corrected" version and the explanation for it are nonsense. The original version doesn't imply that there is a hint not taking Keith, so they're trying to "correct" something that isn't a problem in the first place. – nnnnnn Jul 07 '20 at 20:25

1 Answers1

7

"*Kieth does not a hint take" is Shakespearean (or Elizabethan) syntax. Spoken today, that would sound formal and aloof. But it might work well in a poem, where a rhyme for "take" might be easier to work in than for "hint".

It reminds me of German, where the verb typically goes at the end of the sentence.

The "corrected version" is indeed worse.

ZZMike
  • 1,313
  • The verb only goes at the end of a German sentence in subordinate clauses. In non-subordinate clauses, the (main, inflected) verb favours the Wackernagel position in German just as in English. Modifiers and complements to infinitives precede the infinitive, though, which often ends up giving the impression that a verb in the infinitive goes last in the sentence. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Aug 26 '13 at 21:52
  • Yoda also the verb at the end of the sentence often puts. – mikeY Aug 26 '13 at 22:07
  • @mikeY reminiscent of Yoda speak indeed this is. In Shoe's linked question, Robusto notes that this type of rearrangement is referred to as hyperbaton – Ben Grossmann Aug 26 '13 at 22:57
  • @ZZMike thank you for your input. I'm glad that you (and the commenters) agree that the "corrected version" is worse. – Ben Grossmann Aug 26 '13 at 22:59