vividly to sense
world’s precariousness and
the perils ahead
Based on the paragraph:
The subsequent fortnight has, of course, proved a very long time in geopolitics.
The UK has finally elected a grownup government;
France has perhaps temporarily averted the prospect of a far-right administration;
and Trump has dodged that bullet and raced ahead in the polls.
Having Applebaum’s book closely in mind through all those events is vividly to sense the underlying precariousness of our world, the perils immediately ahead.
In the article, Pulitzer-winning author Anne Applebaum: ‘Often, for autocrats, the second time in power is worse’ by Tim Adams in the Guardian on July 21, 2024.
The article is an interview with Anne Applebaum and a review of her latest book, Autocracy, Inc: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World.
I could comment on the content in the article but I think it speaks for itself.
I could comment on the context of the article but I won’t.
It is the words used to fill up the content that I want to focus on.
The focus of the interview, Ms. Applebaum, is renown for passages like:
“Nowadays autocracies are run not by one bad guy, but by sophisticated networks composed of kleptocratic financial structures, security services (military, police, paramilitary groups, surveillance), and professional propagandists.“
Just on syllable count alone she wins.
But it is the words of Mr. Adams that I like.
First off, anyone who can get fortnight and even more wonderful how he used it the phrase, The subsequent fortnight , well Boy Howdy, I take my hat off to.
Then there was the use of vividly to sense.
With almost 5 years of high school and college Latin in my brain, the only grammatical error left (in the age of tweets and texts) is the dreaded split infinitive.
As Herman Wouk writes in his novel, The Caine Mutiny, “… note that split infinitive in paragraph three. If you want a letter to sound official, split an infinitive.”
How easy would it have been for Mr. Adam to write, ‘to vividly sense.“
Needless to say I was shocked, shocked I tell you, to read in Wikipedia, “In the 19th century, some linguistic prescriptivists sought to disallow the split infinitive, and the resulting conflict had considerable cultural importance. The construction still renders disagreement, but modern English usage guides have largely dropped the objection to it.
The split infinitive terminology is not widely used in modern linguistics. Some linguists question whether a to-infinitive phrase can meaningfully be called a “full infinitive” and, consequently, whether an infinitive can be “split” at all.”
It makes absolutely no difference in the history of the world or the happenings of today but for me and myself, but vividly to sense made my day.
