Please help me, I don't get the drift of bold part in the sentence below.

The father himself did not complain about the omission. On the day of the funeral, which was very fine, he headed out of town as he would have done ordinarily on a day he had decided not to spend at Douds. He was wearing a felt hat and a long coat that would do for a rug if he wanted to take a nap. His overshoes were neatly held on his feet with the rubber rings from sealing jars. He was going out to fish for suckers. The season hadn't opened yet, but he always managed to be a bit ahead of it. He fished through the spring and early summer and cooked and ate what he caught. He had a frying pan and a pot hidden out on the riverbank. The pot was for boiling corn that he snatched out of the fields later in the year, when he was also eating the fruit of wild apple trees and grapevines. He was quite sane but abhorred conversation. He could not altogether avoid it in the weeks following his son's death, but he had a way of cutting it short.

"Casting away" by Alice munro


I think it's

He was quite sane but (he) abhorred conversation.

  • One more question :) Is this kind of omission a common practice.
    – user3214
    Apr 2 '14 at 9:07
  • 3
    I've seen similar omissions in other novels, so I believe that this kind of omission is quite common. Apr 2 '14 at 9:11
  • 1
    You can describe it as a coordination of predicates without positing ellipsis, if you like: He [ [ was quite sane ] but [ abhorred conversation ] ] . He [ [ liked cheese ] but [ hated milk ] ] .
    – user230
    Apr 3 '14 at 21:55

Your Answer

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