Some unknown pattern

[hairstyler]

Dear Mr. Carillo,

I don't understand the following sentence pattern,  please help me solve it. 
Thanks a million.

1) An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post.

I don't understand the reason why the above sentence have two "is" simultaneously and the subordinate clause haven't a verb.  Is it a special structure ??  Please state.

2) For guesses and doubts about the extent of his talents arouse more veneration than accurate knowledge of them, be they ever so great.

I studied the "more ... than... "  structure ago, but i don't know if a noun applied between the "more ... than" is correct.  Please describe if the inversion occurs in subordinate clause.

3) No one must know the extent of a wise person's abilities, lest he be disappointed.

I don't understand whey subordinate clause use the verb "be" after the noun "he"

Thanks you a million.

[Joe Carillo]

(1)
I’m not surprised that you find the following sentence difficult to understand:

An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post.

It’s because it has an abstruse construction that makes it almost a fused or run-on sentence (“Fused sentences are very serious and annoying grammar violations”), and one that’s made more confusing by inadequate punctuation. This also explains why, as you pointed out, that sentence appears to be using the linking verb “is” simultaneously for no grammatically valid reason.

The first step to unraveling that sentence grammatically is to recognize that its first clause, “an ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness,” is meant to be some rule being quoted verbatim. As such, that whole clause should be set off by a pair of quotation marks to make it a grammatically legitimate part of that sentence, as follows:

“An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness” is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post.

We can see that when that quoted statement is set off by the pair of quotation marks, it becomes a noun form that serves as the subject of the main clause whose predicate is “the first and highest rule of all deeds and words.” In short, from a sentence structure standpoint, there’s actually only one linking verb “is” in that main clause—the one that links that quoted statement to the predicate of the main clause. Structurally, the other “is” doesn’t count because it’s integral to the quoted statement that’s functioning as the grammatical subject of that clause.

Now, these words that follow the first clause of that sentence in question may look like a subordinate clause but it really isn’t: “the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post. It’s actually a coordinate clause of the first clause, and together they form a compound sentence that normally would read as follows:

“An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness” is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, and the higher and more numerous your posts, the more it will be necessary to follow that rule.”

However,to make the statement more concise and punchy, not only was the second coordinate clause inverted but it was also reduced or ellipted—some words were dropped from it, including the coordinating conjunction “and” and the linking verb form “to be”—as follows:

“An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness” is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, [and] the more necessary [it has to be] to be followed the higher and more numerous your posts.”

For an explanation of how ellipses work, click this link to “Understanding the advanced grammar of elliptical sentences.”

(2)
Yes, a noun applied between the comparative “more ... than” is grammatically correct, as in the case of “veneration” in this sentence you presented:

For guesses and doubts about the extent of his talents arouse more veneration than accurate knowledge of them, be they ever so great.

The comparison being made is, of course, between two subjects, “veneration” and “accurate knowledge of (the extent of his talents).” But I don’t think inversion has been done to that sentence. What happened is simply that the adverbial modifier “be they ever so great” was moved to the tail end of the sentence for greater impact. The normal position of that adverbial modifier is as follows:

For guesses and doubts about the extent of his talents, be they ever so great, arouse more veneration than accurate knowledge of them.

(3)
Regarding the use of the verb “be” after the noun “he” in the following sentence:

“No one must know the extent of a wise person's abilities, lest he be disappointed.”

The word “lest” is being used in that sentence as a subordinating conjunction that means “so as to prevent any possibility, and “lest” is a subordinating conjunction that requires that particular clause to be in the subjunctive mood, which in turn is a form that requires the linking verb “is” to always take the subjunctive form “be” regardless of whether the subject is singular or plural (“The proper use of the English subjunctive”).

[hairstyler]

(1)
I’m not surprised that you find the following sentence difficult to understand:

An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post.

It’s because it has an abstruse construction that makes it almost a fused or run-on sentence (“Fused sentences are very serious and annoying grammar violations”), and one that’s made more confusing by inadequate punctuation. This also explains why, as you pointed out, that sentence appears to be using the linking verb “is” simultaneously for no grammatically valid reason.

The first step to unraveling that sentence grammatically is to recognize that its first clause, “an ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness,” is meant to be some rule being quoted verbatim. As such, that whole clause should be set off by a pair of quotation marks to make it a grammatically legitimate part of that sentence, as follows:

“An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness” is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post.

We can see that when that quoted statement is set off by the pair of quotation marks, it becomes a noun form that serves as the subject of the main clause whose predicate is “the first and highest rule of all deeds and words.” In short, from a sentence structure standpoint, there’s actually only one linking verb “is” in that main clause—the one that links that quoted statement to the predicate of the main clause. Structurally, the other “is” doesn’t count because it’s integral to the quoted statement that’s functioning as the grammatical subject of that clause.

Now, these words that follow the first clause of that sentence in question may look like a subordinate clause but it really isn’t: “the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post. It’s actually a coordinate clause of the first clause, and together they form a compound sentence that normally would read as follows:

“An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness” is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, and the higher and more numerous your posts, the more it will be necessary to follow that rule.”

However,to make the statement more concise and punchy, not only was the second coordinate clause inverted but it was also reduced or ellipted—some words were dropped from it, including the coordinating conjunction “and” and the linking verb form “to be”—as follows:

“An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness” is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, [and] the more necessary [it has to be] to be followed the higher and more numerous your posts.”

For an explanation of how ellipses work, click this link to “Understanding the advanced grammar of elliptical sentences.”

(2)
Yes, a noun applied between the comparative “more ... than” is grammatically correct, as in the case of “veneration” in this sentence you presented:

For guesses and doubts about the extent of his talents arouse more veneration than accurate knowledge of them, be they ever so great.

The comparison being made is, of course, between two subjects, “veneration” and “accurate knowledge of (the extent of his talents).” But I don’t think inversion has been done to that sentence. What happened is simply that the adverbial modifier “be they ever so great” was moved to the tail end of the sentence for greater impact. The normal position of that adverbial modifier is as follows:

For guesses and doubts about the extent of his talents, be they ever so great, arouse more veneration than accurate knowledge of them.

(3)
Regarding the use of the verb “be” after the noun “he” in the following sentence:

“No one must know the extent of a wise person's abilities, lest he be disappointed.”

The word “lest” is being used in that sentence as a subordinating conjunction that means “so as to prevent any possibility, and “lest” is a subordinating conjunction that requires that particular clause to be in the subjunctive mood, which in turn is a form that requires the linking verb “is” to always take the subjunctive form “be” regardless of whether the subject is singular or plural (“The proper use of the English subjunctive”).

Firstly, Thank you for your early response.  Under the point (2) you issued, I still  don't understand the actual meaning of "be they ever so great".  Please clarify if the "be they ever so great" is a phase that has a fixed meaning.  And Under point (3),  according to my common sense after "he", a "is" should be used. Why is "be" used preferably instead of "is"

[Joe Carillo]

The subjunctive expression "be they ever so great" is equivalent to the indicative expression "no matter how great they might be." The use of "be" instead of "is" for a singular pronoun like "he" is another telltale sign of the subjunctive form. To understand this seemingly strange grammatical form, you need to make an effort to familiarize yourself with it. Learning it admittedly won't be easy. As I earlier suggested, you can start by clicking the link to my earlier discussion of the subjunctive in the Forum (“The proper use of the English subjunctive”) for a starter lesson on the subject. After that, you will need some further readings on the subjunctive on your own initiative to fully understand this rather puzzling aspect of English grammar.  

[hairstyler]

The subjunctive expression "be they ever so great" is equivalent to the indicative expression "no matter how great they might be." The use of "be" instead of "is" for a singular pronoun like "he" is another telltale sign of the subjunctive form. To understand this seemingly strange grammatical form, you need to make an effort to familiarize yourself with it. Learning it admittedly won't be easy. As I earlier suggested, you can start by clicking the link to my earlier discussion of the subjunctive in the Forum (“The proper use of the English subjunctive”) for a starter lesson on the subject. After that, you will need some further readings on the subjunctive on your own initiative to fully understand this rather puzzling aspect of English grammar.  

If I want to understand the structure of "be they ever so great", which scope of english grammer do I need to read in english grammer book ??

[Joe Carillo]

To fully understand the grammatical structure of “be they ever so great,” you need to study the sentence pattern known as inversion as well as the subjunctive mood in English. You may want to check out my book Give Your English the Winning Edge (Manila Times Publishing, 486 pages) for a comprehensive discussion of these advanced aspects of English grammar. It devotes five chapters to inversion, and three chapters to the subjunctive mood.

[hairstyler]

To fully understand the grammatical structure of “be they ever so great,” you need to study the sentence pattern known as inversion as well as the subjunctive mood in English. You may want to check out my book Give Your English the Winning Edge (Manila Times Publishing, 486 pages) for a comprehensive discussion of these advanced aspects of English grammar. It devotes five chapters to inversion, and three chapters to the subjunctive mood.

Please clarify if the "be they ever so great" consists of the attribute of inversion and subjunctive mood at the same time.

Thanks.

[Joe Carillo]

Yes, of course!

[Joe Carillo]

Dear Mr. Carillo,

I don't understand the following sentence pattern,  please help me solve it. 
Thanks a million.

1) An ounce of wisdom is worth more than a ton of cleverness is the first and highest rule of all deeds and words, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous your post.

I don't understand the reason why the above sentence have two "is" simultaneously and the subordinate clause haven't a verb.  Is it a special structure ??  Please state.

2) For guesses and doubts about the extent of his talents arouse more veneration than accurate knowledge of them, be they ever so great.

I studied the "more ... than... "  structure ago, but i don't know if a noun applied between the "more ... than" is correct.  Please describe if the inversion occurs in subordinate clause.

3) No one must know the extent of a wise person's abilities, lest he be disappointed.

I don't understand whey subordinate clause use the verb "be" after the noun "he"

Thanks you a million.

POSTSCRIPT:
I have determined that the three quotations submitted by Hairstyler for deconstruction are also from the Oraculo manual y arte de prudencia (The Art of Worldly Wisdom), written in 1637 by the Spanish-born Jesuit priest Balthasar Gracian (1601-1658) and translated into English by the Australia-born British folklorist and literary critic Joseph Jacobs in 1892. This is the same source of samples of Victorian English sentence patterns that Hairstyler earlier posted in the forum for deconstruction.

I must say for the record, though, that Hairstyler disingenuously fudged Gracian’s Aphorism 92—the quoted statement in Item #1 above—when he submitted it for deconstruction. Its exact wording in the Jacobs translation is as follows:

xcii Transcendant Wisdom.

I mean in everything. The first and highest rule of all deed and speech, the more necessary to be followed the higher and more numerous our posts, is: an ounce of wisdom is worth more than tons of cleverness. It is the only sure way, though it may not gain so much applause. The reputation of wisdom is the last triumph of fame. It is enough if you satisfy the wise, for their judgment is the touchstone of true success.

In other words, Hairstyler took extreme grammatical liberties with Gracian’s ideas in that aphorism and with the text of Joseph Jacob’s translation of it—something that’s very unseemly from someone who had presented himself as a serious student of English needing help in his self-improvement efforts. Sad to say, at least in the case of Gracian’s Aphorism 92, Hairstyler deliberately created even more serious grammatical complications than the original already had, thus wasting not only my time and effort but also those of Forum members following the discussion thread. It appears now that Hairstyler was more interested in putting my English sentence deconstruction skills to a test rather than in truthfully seeking understanding of the peculiar grammar of the original passage.

Even under these circumstances, though, I stand by my detailed deconstruction above of Gracian’s Aphorism 92 as rewritten by Hairstyler. But I must warn Hairstyler that the underhanded practice of fudging original passages in the literature for grammatical deconstruction in the Forum is unwelcome and will be dealt with severely the next time it’s done.