0

In your opinion, is the following sentence (the first part of it) grammatically correct?

"It boggled him Truman manned the Oval Office while they spent the last of their meager savings on two hedonistic weeks of sun, surf and sex".

Isn't there something amiss - say, a conjunction - between "it boggled him" and the Truman part? Or is the sentence all right as it is now?

And as for the meaning of the passage as well: does it imply that any reckless spending would've been considered paradoxical during Truman's presidency - on the grounds of times being economically tough? or some other reason?

Thank you in advance.

  • 1
    It boggled him that.....a that is missing, of course. Looks like a copyediting error. – Lambie Feb 3 '16 at 19:34
  • You most often hear boggled applied to part of a person (specifically, to the person's mind) rather than to the person as a whole. – Sven Yargs Feb 3 '16 at 19:38
  • 1
    There's nothing inherently "ungrammatical" about deleting that in OP's cited context, even though almost certainly most writers would include it. I tracked down the ebook source - my guess is the "boggling" contrast is simply being drawn between doing "meaningful" things (like running a country) and mere self-indulgence. But mine and any other opinions are just that - POB. – FumbleFingers Feb 3 '16 at 20:58
-1

They writer tried to reduce the displaced apposition by eliding 'that'. {Compare to: 'He told her [that] it was full.'} Because the apposition is displaced from the dummy pronoun 'it', the listener is already straining and the omission of 'that' is too much.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.