Palladin wrote:
generis wrote:
The structure about which you ask could be written this way:
→ X blah blah—X that does P—also does Q.
→ X that makes P [happen] also enables Q [to happen].
→ The . . . construction of a butterfly's wings—the same construction that makes P happen—also enables Q to happen.
generis, isn't the sentence "
the same construction that makes ..." an appositive?
So, the original sentence should make sense if the appositive is removed.
However, the sentence "
Scientists have recently discovered that the ultra thin, layered construction of a butterfly's wings also enables the insect to control ..." seems like it doesn't need
also.
Could you explain?
Palladin , we are in a bind.
Also is not underlined. The sentence is good. The guideline, yes, says that the core meaning of the original sentence should make sense if the appositive is removed (a resumptive modifier is a type of appositive).
I so regret using ANY jargon. *facepalm*
After I discuss resumptive modifiers and apposition quickly, let's call that thing between the em dashes a
modifier and check its meaning.
A resumptive modifer is a special kind of appositive according to the grammar and language source that I use often use.** Makes sense. A resumptive modifier simply repeats the noun and gives additional information. The “special” quality to the resumptive modifier is simply that it literally renames the noun. (“the same
construction”)
Resumptive and summative modifiers are sophisticated ways to vary prose, as is all apposition. Resumptive modifiers are rhetorically effective if used sparingly.
Now we come to the part in which I say that the modifier between the em dashes
cannot be removed in the way we normally think about non-restrictive modifiers.
The second mention of "construction" is essential to the meaning of the non-underlined portion of the sentence.
The first mention of "construction" is not accompanied by a that-clause. The second mention is accompanied by a that-clause. ALSO is in the non-underlined portion of the sentence and cannot be removed.
This is (D)
Scientists have recently discovered that the ultra-thin, layered construction of a butterfly’s wings—the same construction that makes some butterflies shimmer via the phenomenon of iridescence—also enables the insect to control how much heat energy is absorbed by its wings and how much is reflected away.
Sometimes commas and em dashes are unavoidable. This sentence is good prose. Technically, em dashes signal nonessential material that can be removed without changing the core meaning of the sentence. Parentheticals typically are just that: asides.
Those characterizations are not true in this case.
We cannot remove the bracketed material. The core meaning of the sentence changes. The sentence intends to tell us that scientists have discovered a second property of the construction of a butterfly’s wings.
Pretend that we can remove “also.” (We cannot actually do so because also is in the non-underlined portion.)
This is (D) with the modifier and
also removed:
Scientists have recently discovered that the ultra-thin, layered construction of a butterfly’s wings enables the insect to control how much heat and energy is absorbed by its wings and how much is reflected away.The core meaning is lost. The construction does TWO things. (And both of those things are cool.) Where is the other thing that the construction of a butterfly’s wings does?
I can understand wanting the rules to work all of the time. Only a very few rules do so, such as subject/verb agreement, pronoun/noun agreement, subject/object pronoun use, comma splices, and fragments.
In this case, I would argue that rhetorical effectiveness requires this kind of punctuation.
I rewrote the sentence three different ways. None was as effective as this construction.
Alternatively, call option D the “best of the five.”
Finally, if you think that a better option exists, argue your case and tag me.
This sentence is well-written. It is more than comprehensible.
I know that SC can often seem like an inexact science. It is.
I would not toss the best answer because it did not adhere to rules about essential and non-essential information.
And if you do think that a better option exists, that's okay. You have to argue your case to convince me, but that's okay.
Good instincts. +1
_________________
—The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance. ~Einstein—I stand with Ukraine.
Donate to Help Ukraine!