Hard sentence discussed heatedly!

[tisep]

"A desire to throw over reality a light that never was might give away abruptly to the desire on the part of what we might consider a novelist-scientist to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower. "

this sentence appeared in reading comprehension. But there is no way i can understand what the author is saying. how come "was might" can be used together? Please help me, you native English speaking people.

[Fredrichodie]

my view...
"that never was" is the attribute of "reality", and "might give give away" is the main predicate of the whole sentence

the meaning should be that "desire A might be replaced by desire B" A is to express own understanding, and B is to record exactly and concretely
The whole sentence seems to indicate a contradiction between objective records and original subjective ideas.

hope that can help~ I'm not a native speaker either...

[Ninevah]

I hope reading it in parts like that will help:

A desire to throw over reality a light that never was...
A desire to throw light on a non-existing reality... or A desire to throw a non-existing light on a reality...
...might give away (are you sure this is not "a way"?) abruptly to the desire on the part of what we might consider a novelist-scientist to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower.
...might reveal abruptly the novelist-scientist desire to record in exact details the structure and texture of a flower.

Those writers need to learn how to write...

[tisep]

Originally Posted by Ninevah

...might give away (are you sure this is not "a way"?)

oh... you are probably right. Ok this is what actually happens. One of the presumably great english teacher in my country said the original sentence should be "(This is ) a desire....." and the normal sentence should go like this
"This is A desire to throw over reality that might never be given a way(not sure if is away or a way) abruptly to the desire on the part of what we might consider a novelist-scientist to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower a light."

And he said that "A give way to B" means B replace A and " A be given way to B" means A replace B. so the meaning of the sentence is that
B, "desire on the part of what we might consider a novelist-scientist to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower" will never be replaced abruptly by A, "A desire to throw over reality a light"

Now can anybody explain if this sounds reasonable? how did "that never was might give ...." mean originally " that might never be given... " . Is this some kind of hyperbaton? and does this occur often in english writing?

thanks

[tommytommy]

I agree with 9vah's explanation. your teacher's sentence is way too contorted from the original.

'to throw light' means to explain better. I feel the sentence is missing a few commas, and we have a few danglers:
'to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower' - something paradoxical, obsessive, maybe even futile.

A desire to throw, over reality, a light, that never was, might give away abruptly to the desire on the part of, what we might consider, a novelist-scientist to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower.

but in a way your teacher is right.

what the author is saying is that:

The desire to explain something unreal or non existent may turn into desire(obsession) to do the impossible or futile.
So he is saying that A might turn into -A.
For example the desire to be in someone's company may turn into a desire to be with them all the time, which would be intrusive.
It can only be inferred, though not mentioned in the sentence, that the author is warning against A turning into -A. and therefore we might assume that the author intends to say that A should not give way to -A

[tisep]

Originally Posted by tommytommy

I agree with 9vah's explanation. your teacher's sentence is way too contorted from the original.

'to throw light' means to explain better. I feel the sentence is missing a few commas, and we have a few danglers:
'to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower' - something paradoxical, obsessive, maybe even futile.

A desire to throw, over reality, a light, that never was, might give away abruptly to the desire on the part of, what we might consider, a novelist-scientist to record exactly and concretely the structure and texture of a flower.

but in a way your teacher is right.

what the author is saying is that:

The desire to explain something unreal or non existent may turn into desire(obsession) to do the impossible or futile.
So he is saying that A might turn into -A.
For example the desire to be in someone's company may turn into a desire to be with them all the time, which would be intrusive.
It can only be inferred, though not mentioned in the sentence, that the author is warning against A turning into -A. and therefore we might assume that the author intends to say that A should not give way to -A

which noun is "that never was" defining ? desire , reality or light???? So confusing.

[tommytommy]

well if you look at it just structurally, even i can't tell. I agree it's a horribly contorted sentence.

but if we look at it meaning wise :
A desire to throw light that never was on reality
A desire that never was to throw light on reality
A desire to throw light on reality that never was

only the last phrase seems plausible.

[sham12345]

1. The recording should not be of desire.
2. the recordings has to be objective