On November 12, 1940, Mr. Winston Churchill included these words in his beautiful and moving eulogy for Mr. Neville Chamberlain:
It is not given to human beings, happily for them, for otherwise
life would be intolerable, to foresee or to predict to any large
extent the unfolding course of events.
Of course, I do not expect anyone to diagram all of that for me.
I think that I can diagram the main sentence:
It (to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding
course of events) is not given to human beings.
But I am having trouble diagramming the parenthetical
elements: happily for them, for otherwise life would be
THANK YOU for any help that you may wish to pass along to
your humble servant.
I think "happily for them" is just set of to the side and not connected -- there is a name for that, but I can't think of it right away. The phrase acts a little like an interjection. Otherwise you could introduce understood words like "and this happens happily for them" if you want to make the whole diagram as one connected "web". The adverb clause modifies "happily" and "otherwise" modifies "would be".
Now, since I began to write this reply, I see that it has been diagrammed. I will send this and then look.
I disagree with what the "for..." clause modifies, and I think the appositive could have been made single with a compound infinitive. This second thought would make the diagram much less complicated. That compound infinitive shares the direct object.
Also, I think Corum forgot the word "be". (It does that now and then -- brilliant diagram but with a missing word.) (!)
That's pretty! And kind of funny.
Yes, I guess that is what I mean. I guess I would make the dashed line horizontal and closer to the split.
In any case, nice work!
Yes, I guess you are right about the modification of the "for" clause, but when I looked more closely at your diagram, I noticed that you had treated "happily" as if it were a participle. Now THAT I think is wrong.
Thanks again for helping me so much.
By a happy coincidence, I was able to find a somewhat
similar situation in Kitty Burns Florey's delightful Sister
Bernadette's Barking Dog (Melville House Publishing: Hoboken, New Jersey,
I believe that I have given enough credit in order to legally quote part of
one of her sentences:
No pictures that represent us otherwise can be true, though, happily, for human nature, gleamings of that pure spirit in whose likeness man has been fashioned are to be seen ....
Ms. Florey diagrams "though" as connecting:
"No pictures that represent us otherwise can be true"
"gleamings ... are to be seen."
I think that we three agree with her.
Apparently, to make things as simplified as possible, she then
diagrams "happily" as an adverb that modifies "are to be seen."
(With "for human nature" modifying "happily.")
That is her opinion. Perhaps others feel that "happily for human
nature" should be diagrammed as an independent element (disjunct).
I think that some people have pointed out that they disagree with
certain aspects of her diagrams.
It appears that people can have sincere differences of opinion on
how to use the Reed-Kellogg system. It's a wonderful way to
exercise one's brain, isn't it!!!
Yes, it certainly is!
Sometimes how a diagram should look depends upon what the speaker intended.
I think that for her book Florey used Eugene Moutoux's (spelling?) help. He is certainly an authority, and I think Corum once referred to him as his mentor.