Dan Smith
They wrote long sentences back then! ("Robinson Crusoe," 1719)
This sentence is from Daniel Defoe's <em>Robinson Crusoe</em>, published in 1719. It's not even unusually long for its time, it just happened to catch my eye.

<em>After I had solaced my mind with the comfortable part of my condition, I began to look round me, to see what kind of place I was in, and what was next to be done; and I soon found my comforts abate, and that in a word I had a dreadful deliverance; for I was wet, had no clothes to shift me, nor any thing either to eat or drink to comfort me; neither did I see any prospect before me, but that of perishing with hunger, or being devoured by wild beasts; and that which was particularly afflicting to me, was, that I had no weapon either to hunt and kill any creature for my sustenance, or to defend myself against any other creature that might desire to kill me for theirs; in a word, I had nothing about me but a knife, a tobacco pipe, and a little tobacco in a box; this was all my provision, and this threw me into terrible agonies of mind, that for a while I ran about like a madman. </em>

Pretty good, huh?

Of course, even the titles were long--the actual title is really The Life and Adventures of Robinson Crusoe. No, it isn't. The <em>actual</em> title was<em>The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, Of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver'd by Pyrates.</em>
Dec 4, 2019 6:52 PM
Comments · 7
2
I feel like every English teacher in the world would pillory you if you wrote such a long sentence now. I know I was taught not to do that.
December 4, 2019
1
Thanks, Dan, for another interesting post! By the way, as I’ve mentioned before, singular “they”, much maligned by some self-appointed grammar police, has been around for hundreds of years (almost as long as singular “you”), and this 300 year old text has what appears to be a good example: “…any other creature that might desire to kill me for theirs….” Since "any other creature" is presumably not human, it would be tempting to simply use "its", although sounds somehow wrong to me; in fact, some grammarians argue that "its" cannot be used as a pronoun. So singular "they" or "its" as a pronoun — which is the greater evil?

December 4, 2019
Hey, i am brazillian portuguese, i have skype, do you want to learn portuguese with me if you help me with english
December 5, 2019
It's not <em>that</em> bad. You can almost translate it into contemporary English just by replacing all the semicolons with periods.
December 5, 2019
Fun. It’s so interesting to read books/letters from other time periods, although the language can be a bit foreign at times. You learn so much about history.
December 4, 2019
Show more