Talk:Periodic sentence

Unencyclopedic language
Several descriptors in this article, while evocative, do not fit the tone of an encyclopedic article (i.e. "...like a string of pearls", etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.164.155 (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the Tolstoy example contradicts the definition offered. According to the definition of periodic sentences offered in the article, Tolstoy's sentence (quoted below) is not periodic. The subject and predicate are offered immediately, and the clause is complete before "why" is even introduced. Once it is, the sentence is a series of independent clauses and hence could be "grammatically complete" at the end of each. "Pierre could not refuse," as far as I know, is a dependent clause and thus, once again, the sentence is grammatically complete very early on. Here is the Tolstoy example to which I refer:

"In Russian, Tolstoy excels at the periodic sentence. In this example from War and Peace, translated by Louise and Alymer Maude, Tolstoy creates a sentence that has periods on the word why:

Only Countess Helene, considering the society of such people as the Bergs beneath her, could be cruel enough to refuse such an invitation. Berg explained so clearly why he wanted to collect at his house a small but select company, and why this would give him pleasure, and why though he grudged spending money on cards or anything harmful, he was prepared to run into some expense for the sake of good society—that Pierre could not refuse, and promised to come."

Kanugent (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point. I'd say that it's still periodic because the "so" sets up a grammatical expectation of a "that," and it's the "that" clause that's deferred until the end of the sentence.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC) I think so to its not correct someone plese change it!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.220.162 (talk) 01:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the example an example?
I removed the following comment from inside the article:
 * Note: Someone might want to consider revising this portion. The above sentence cannot be classified as periodic because the last clause is not independent. "Descends the snow" is not a complete thought and can't stand alone. Therefore, it is dependent.

Someone else also dissented with the comment (again, in the article):
 * Actually, I believe that it's right: Snow-subj, descends-verb. I don't think it a fragment.

This can be discussed here on the talk page. (I agree with the second comment, that the example is appropriate, but I'm no expert grammarian.) --Dzhim (talk) 13:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Peace
In peace we talk to god 64.229.66.21 (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)