[Grammar] It's argued this money would - This money , it's argued, would. Grammar rule.

[saloom2]

Hello everyone,

I would like to know the grammar rule of this change.

The normal one I write on occasion: It's argued this money would be better spent .....

The other one: This money , it's argued, would be better spent.....

 

[probus]

There is no difference. They are freely interchangeable.

 

[saloom2]

I know. Acually, I have copied the second sentence from a site and I just want to know a rule to be followed just to improve my writing skills.

 

[saloom2]

Not in a hurry but I just don't want anyone to forget my question, please!

 

[probus]

There isn't really a rule of grammar involved. It's more a matter of rhetoric.

Both of your examples are equivalent to "It is argued that this money would be better spent...". Grammatically, then, "It is argued that ..." is the principal clause of a compound sentence. But from the point of view of rhetoric "It is argued that ..." is weak. The real point of the sentence is that the money could be better spent, not that someone is making an argument.

In order to correct this misplaced emphasis, the connective "that" has been omitted as understood and the remainder contracted to "it's argued". Thus reduced, the clause can then be left at the beginning of the sentence, or even better, be placed after "the money". Either way the emphasis on "this money" is increased, and the rhetorical effect of the sentence improved.