The sheer size and posture of it(the monster) is such that though it tries to crack open my now pachydermatous heart from all the trauma of life, not a single rivulet of light does my heart seem to want to let it be furnished with.

This part makes not much sense. Is this grammar OK? What is this structure?

  • I found it quite beautiful, though I'm not certain what it in let it be refers to (perhaps the heart), and what was it going be furnished with (perhaps the pachyderms, or the sheer size and monster's posture). – Damkerng T. Dec 16 '13 at 9:04
  • From the context, it means the monster coz it doesn't want to let the monster be furnished with this light. – user2492 Dec 16 '13 at 9:13
  • 1
    Opinions may differ, obviously, but I think this is a truly dreadful example of cumbersome and pretentious phrasing. I don't think learners are likely to pick up anything useful about contemporary English usage by dissecting it. – FumbleFingers Reinstate Monica Dec 16 '13 at 18:01
  • Oof. It's like something out of Bulwer-Lytton. – snailplane Dec 20 '13 at 12:41

"not a single rivulet of light does my heart seem to want to let it be furnished with."

This is an extremely odd sentence, although I would not say it's grammatically wrong. First, let's study the predicate "let it be furnished with."

To put that in a literal, rather than metaphorical, story, consider:

"I own the room, so John has to ask me permission to put furniture in it. There is a chair that I like a lot. I want John to put in the room. So you can say of the room that this is the chair that I want to let it be furnished with."

I hope this makes sense grammatically, even if it is a weird story. Now we have the same, but metaphorically, with the heart being the landlord, the light being the chair, and the monster being the room.

In addition to the odd "let it be furnished with" construction though we also have

"(not) [object] does [subject] [verb]."

I don't know the name for this structure (it reminds me a bit of Yoda in star wars), but it's not rare in music and poetry (often in poorly-written poetry to get a rhyme and give an old-time effect) while never used in speech. It is more common with other auxiliary verbs (e.g. has or will instead of does.)

| improve this answer | |
  • hmm, I forgot that "furnish" can also mean "provide." That makes the "let it be furnished with" seem slightly less strange. If I get time later I'll make another story with this meaning of the verb instead (which is the one the author intended, I think). – hunter Dec 16 '13 at 17:23

Yes, it's grammatical and it's an additional explanation to the previous part of your statement. I'd say it's a dependent clause, which means it looses its meaning or cannot stand on its own.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy