1

I have an odd sentence structure that I'm proofing that, for the author's idiosyncratic needs, has to maintain an inverted structure.

The sentence is

trustworthy must he be who would be allowed our secrets.

I'm inclined to think that the "he" and "be" should be swapped ("trustworthy must be he who would . . . "). My thinking is that "who" attached to "he," not "be." But some of my colleagues think otherwise. Is there a right or wrong answer here? Thanks!

Barmar
  • 20,741
  • 1
  • 38
  • 59
norseeagle
  • 11
  • 1
    If editing while unsure, best not to change it. – Yosef Baskin Dec 28 '23 at 15:27
  • 1
    I think it works in either order, although it changes the emphasis. But this whole inversion is somewhat archaic. – Barmar Dec 28 '23 at 18:10
  • Missing word: who would be allowed to know our secrets. Obviously. You know someone's secrets or find out someone's secrets. You need a verb. Without a verb the meaning is differnt: He was allowed no cake at breakfast. – Lambie Dec 28 '23 at 19:54
  • 2
    @Lambie — Allowed means provided or granted here. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 29 '23 at 00:43
  • 1
    Don't try to impose modern syntax on literary pieces. – BillJ Dec 29 '23 at 09:11
  • @TinfoilHat For me, it doesn't matter whether it's provided, granted or allowed. There's still a missing word. "to be allowed our secrets" just doesn't make much sense. allow secrets: The man was not allowed [to have] any secrets. One has secrets or keeps secrets. – Lambie Dec 29 '23 at 15:42
  • I kinda prefer who our secrets is allowed. Double down on the inverted structure? – shawnt00 Jan 19 '24 at 17:27

5 Answers5

1

Both are acceptable, and the difference is very subtle, perhaps even insignificant.

Trustworthy must he be who would be allowed our secrets.

means

Whoever would be allowed our secrets must be trustworthy.

When you swap the words,

Trustworthy must be he who would be allowed our secrets.

means

He who would be allowed our secrets must be trustworthy.

Barmar
  • 20,741
  • 1
  • 38
  • 59
0

If you’re working in scriptural vernacular, it’s fine as is.

A drive-by search on "he be who" reveals . . .

Google All

Google Books

Tinfoil Hat
  • 17,008
  • A drive-by search on "he be who"… If these searches do return similar results for most people now (unlikely for main Google search but possible), they certainly won't a year from now. Summarize your point in the answer itself instead of relying on volatile links like that. – Laurel Dec 29 '23 at 20:30
  • @Laurel — Unless the Bible and other religious tracts disappear from the internets, these links can certainly be relied upon to return relevant results. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 29 '23 at 20:40
0
  • Trustworthy must he be who would be allowed our secrets.

shows the inversion and extraposition (CGEL probably prefers 'postposition') from NP one would expect in such a register. But with a non-pronounal subject, especially a heavy one

  • Trustworthy must be that very rare, singularly gifted, and greatly privileged individual who would be allowed our secrets.

the extraposition (positioning the relative clause immediately after 'be', which itself is placed after the NP) becomes farcical:

  • ?Trustworthy must that very rare, singularly gifted, and greatly privileged individual be who would be allowed our secrets.

And terminal 'be' is worse.

Edwin Ashworth
  • 83,272
0

to be allowed one's secrets actually means: to be allowed to have one's secrets.

So, for purposes of clearer prose:

Trustworthy must he be who would be allowed (to know, share, have) our secrets.

I would insert a verb there.

The inversion is fine even though it is old fashioned, to say the least.

Lambie
  • 14,826
  • OP is asking about he be who vs. be he who. – Tinfoil Hat Dec 29 '23 at 18:25
  • @TinfoilHat The inversion is: "trustworthy must he be" versus "he must be trustworthy". I am saying that it is OK as is. There is no need for what he asks, therefore, I didn't address it. – Lambie Dec 29 '23 at 18:29
0

The original version is a generic statement appropriate when a search is underway for such a person. The second version is more likely to happen when the conversation is about whether to allow a particular someone those secrets. I have no problem letting allow carry the verb's business forward here if it is in the context of joining a secret handshake society or something similar. It may be more about the potential to learn the secrets rather than the immediate revealing of them.

Phil Sweet
  • 15,699