[Grammar] A few questions about a sentence that I have come across - caricaturera

[oldbei]

A quote from a book (The Admired Chinese Puzzle by C. Taylor): "To which are added caricaturera Designs as an illustration, every figure being emblematical of some Being or Article known to the Chinese."

My Questions:
1. The word "caricaturera" doesn't seem to be an English word. Is it commonly known to native English speakers?
2. What does "which" stand for? As a rule, can you use a relative pronoun to refer to something mentioned in previous sentences?
3. Why are the words "Designs," "Being," and "Article" capitalized? Is it for emphasis? Is this a good way to emphasize words?
4. Does "every figure" refer to "caricaturera Designs?"

 

[emsr2d2]

Oldbei, you don't have to state that you're not a teacher or a native speaker when you start a thread to ask a question. You only need to say it when you try to answer another learner's question.
I've removed the statement from the start of your post.

 

[Rover_KE]

1) 'Caricaturera', as you say, is not an English word, so it is not commonly known. Was it not defined earlier in the book? 'Caricature' is a common English word.

2) 'Which' refers to something mentioned in the previous sentence, which you have not quoted. In fact, your whole quotation is not a complete sentence. Are you sure the quotation begins with a capital 'T'? I reads as though it's the end of a sentence — not the beginning.

3) I can think of no justification for capitalising the words stated. It is definitely a bad way to emphasise words, which you must not emulate.

4) Yes.

 

[emsr2d2]

I searched for the book you quoted on Amazon where it is listed but it is not available, nor could I find the text online anywhere. However, what I did find out from the Amazon listing is that it is from 1814! On that basis, it is entirely possible that the capitalisations you used were in the original. However, you need to remember that we no longer write in the same way as we did in 1814 and it's not recommended that you use such a text to study English.

 

[Tdol]

None of the dictionaries in OneLook has Caricaturera, and it searches through hundreds of online dictionaries and glossaries.

 

[oldbei]

Teachers,

Thanks for all your help!

A more general question of mine is: are today's English writers better writers than those living, say, 200 years ago?

Do the former respect English grammar more? Or, did the latter just follow a different set of rules?
(By the way, my grammar checker suggests that I should use "does" instead of "do" in the first of the above 2 questions. Am I wrong?)

I am going to attach the original text that I've got from a book called The Tangram Book, written by Jerry Slocum, so that you can better help me.

2) 'Which' refers to something mentioned in the previous sentence, which you have not quoted. In fact, your whole quotation is not a complete sentence. Are you sure the quotation begins with a capital 'T'? I reads as though it's the end of a sentence — not the beginning.

So, a relative pronoun is allowed to be used to refer to something mentioned in a previous sentence? Isn't "To which are added caricaturera Designs" a complete inverted sentence?

 

[emsr2d2]

Better? That's a very subjective question and I'm not even going to attempt to answer it.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

OK, we can now see that you copied the extract correctly, but it isn't a complete sentence and I doubt it was considered complete 200 years ago, but I could be wrong. There is a lot of capitalisation that is wrong according to today's rules.

 

[oldbei]

Better? That's a very subjective question and I'm not even going to attempt to answer it.

Pardon my choice of words. What about more grammatical?

 

[SoothingDave]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

If you examine older documents, like the US Declaration of Independence I have linked to, capitalization of nearly every noun can be found.

Things are different now. We only capitalize proper nouns.

 

[SoothingDave]

Pardon my choice of words. What about more grammatical?

Grammar and usage are different now. You would be best to study the language as it is used now, at least until you become very proficient.

You will probably find that examples of writing from 200 years ago follow the rules of grammar that existed then better than samples of today's writing follow today's rules.

Nowadays, anyone with two thumbs can write stuff on the internet.

 

[oldbei]

Thank you, Roman55.

Is it the "to which" usage or the inverted structure of the sentence that makes you think the sentence is incomplete?

"Added to the standard smart phone package is an unlimited data plan."

Would you consider the above statement a complete sentence?

Cheers,

 

[oldbei]

Grammar and usage are different now. You would be best to study the language as it is used now, at least until you become very proficient.

I am not trying to emulate what I am reading. I just want to understand it.

In the original text, there is this expression "late Embassy." Does it mean an Embassy that is already closed?

I know the word "late" can be used to describe a person who is no longer with us. Can it be used similarly to modify an institution?

 

[SoothingDave]

I don't know what being in the suit of a lord's embassy means. So I can't answer what a "late embassy" means.

 

[oldbei]

~~~ Not a teacher! ~~~ Not a native speaker! ~~~

According to Merriam-Webster, "suit" is the same as "suite," which means "the personal staff accompanying a ruler, diplomat, or dignitary on official business."

 

[emsr2d2]

That's not any definition of "suite" I've ever heard.

 

[Rover_KE]

According to Merriam-Webster, "suit" is the same as "suite," which means "the personal staff accompanying a ruler, diplomat, or dignitary on official business."

MW also says that meaning is archaic.