Help to understand the use of 'but' in this sentence
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses, but the front legs, wings and heads of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes.
I don't know why 'but' is used in this sentence. It seems to me that it could be either a conj. or prep. What's 'but' doing there? Will it change the meaning of the sentence?
-- From Harry Potter.
word-usage meaning-in-context word-meaning
asked yesterday
dan
3,44122257
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses, but the front legs, wings and heads of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes.
I don't know why 'but' is used in this sentence. It seems to me that it could be either a conj. or prep. What's 'but' doing there? Will it change the meaning of the sentence?
-- From Harry Potter.
word-usage meaning-in-context word-meaning
asked yesterday
dan
3,44122257
1
I wish to add this: I am a native speaker, but I had a bit of difficulty parsing this sentence at first reading. I would have preferred "They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses; but the front legs, wings and heads were those of giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes."
– trlkly
19 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
up vote
7
down vote
favorite
They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses, but the front legs, wings and heads of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes.
I don't know why 'but' is used in this sentence. It seems to me that it could be either a conj. or prep. What's 'but' doing there? Will it change the meaning of the sentence?
-- From Harry Potter.
word-usage meaning-in-context word-meaning
asked yesterday
dan
3,44122257
They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses, but the front legs, wings and heads of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes.
I don't know why 'but' is used in this sentence. It seems to me that it could be either a conj. or prep. What's 'but' doing there? Will it change the meaning of the sentence?
-- From Harry Potter.
word-usage meaning-in-context word-meaning
word-usage meaning-in-context word-meaning
asked yesterday
dan
3,44122257
asked yesterday
dan
3,44122257
asked yesterday
dan
3,44122257
asked yesterday
dan
3,44122257
asked yesterday
dan
3,44122257
3,44122257
1
I wish to add this: I am a native speaker, but I had a bit of difficulty parsing this sentence at first reading. I would have preferred "They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses; but the front legs, wings and heads were those of giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes."
– trlkly
19 hours ago
add a comment |
1
I wish to add this: I am a native speaker, but I had a bit of difficulty parsing this sentence at first reading. I would have preferred "They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses; but the front legs, wings and heads were those of giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes."
– trlkly
19 hours ago
1
1
I wish to add this: I am a native speaker, but I had a bit of difficulty parsing this sentence at first reading. I would have preferred "They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses; but the front legs, wings and heads were those of giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes."
– trlkly
19 hours ago
I wish to add this: I am a native speaker, but I had a bit of difficulty parsing this sentence at first reading. I would have preferred "They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses; but the front legs, wings and heads were those of giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes."
– trlkly
19 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
I agree with Michael Rybkin. I think that "but" is used as conjuction there.
At least according to the meaning established in the Oxford Dictionary
but [conjuction]
Used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.
‘he stumbled but didn't fall’
‘this is one principle, but it is not
the only one’
‘the food is cheap but delicious’
‘the problem is not
that they are cutting down trees, but that they are doing it in a
predatory way’
contrast
The state of being strikingly different from something else in
juxtaposition or close association.
Some parts [horse-like] are strikingly different from the other parts [eagle-like].
I have highlighted an specific example above where you can observe that the verb is used only once, the ellipsis mentioned by @Tᴚoɯɐuo
The food is cheap but delicious.
The food is cheap but (it's) delicious.
You got the same case in your example. Let's simplify
They had horse-like bodies but eagle-like heads.
They had horse-like bodies but (they had) eagle-like heads.
answered yesterday
RubioRic
3,8651931
1
Right, I meant "conjunction". I don't know why I wrote "preposition". I was focused more on the semantics. I thought that if the OP understood what the sentence was saying, it wouldn't really matter whether but was used as a conjunction or preposition. Thanks for alerting me to this.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
1
@MichaelRybkin Ok, then I meant "agree" :-)
– RubioRic
yesterday
2
You could replace 'but' with 'and' here and it wouldn't change the meaning.
– JimmyJames
23 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames not quite. Using 'but' gives the reader an expectation that something unusual is coming, while using 'and' makes it a straight up description. It's essentially stylistic, but 'but' does make a difference.
– mcalex
15 hours ago
@mcalex I didn't say it was exactly the same in every way. Semantically, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It's like 'too' versus 'also, style and feeling are different but not meaning. A counter example is that the 'but' in "all but one" cannot be replaced with 'and' without changing the meaning.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
It had the head of a man but (had) the body of a lion.
It is a kind of ellipsis, I think. Perhaps there is a narrower technical term for it. The verb had is understood to govern both objects, the head of a man and the body of a lion.
So that but there joins two clauses in one of which the verb is merely understood to be present.
answered yesterday
Tᴚoɯɐuo
102k676167
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Do you think you will better understand it if I restructure your quote like this:
Question: They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of what?
Answer: Of horses.
Question: But what did they have the front legs, wings and heads of?
Answer: Of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes.
Thus, technically speaking, but as used in your passage is a conjunction. It's making a contrast between different body parts that the creatures they're talking about have. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts which are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
answered yesterday
Michael Rybkin
25.6k10101219
1
Oh, it's an interesting use! I think I get it. Are you saying: they had bodies (of horses), hind legs(of horses) and tails of horses, but had the front legs(of xxx giant eagles), wings(xxx giant eagles) and heads of xxx giant eagles?
– dan
yesterday
1
Exactly. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts that are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
I agree with Michael Rybkin. I think that "but" is used as conjuction there.
At least according to the meaning established in the Oxford Dictionary
but [conjuction]
Used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.
‘he stumbled but didn't fall’
‘this is one principle, but it is not
the only one’
‘the food is cheap but delicious’
‘the problem is not
that they are cutting down trees, but that they are doing it in a
predatory way’
contrast
The state of being strikingly different from something else in
juxtaposition or close association.
Some parts [horse-like] are strikingly different from the other parts [eagle-like].
I have highlighted an specific example above where you can observe that the verb is used only once, the ellipsis mentioned by @Tᴚoɯɐuo
The food is cheap but delicious.
The food is cheap but (it's) delicious.
You got the same case in your example. Let's simplify
They had horse-like bodies but eagle-like heads.
They had horse-like bodies but (they had) eagle-like heads.
answered yesterday
RubioRic
3,8651931
1
Right, I meant "conjunction". I don't know why I wrote "preposition". I was focused more on the semantics. I thought that if the OP understood what the sentence was saying, it wouldn't really matter whether but was used as a conjunction or preposition. Thanks for alerting me to this.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
1
@MichaelRybkin Ok, then I meant "agree" :-)
– RubioRic
yesterday
2
You could replace 'but' with 'and' here and it wouldn't change the meaning.
– JimmyJames
23 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames not quite. Using 'but' gives the reader an expectation that something unusual is coming, while using 'and' makes it a straight up description. It's essentially stylistic, but 'but' does make a difference.
– mcalex
15 hours ago
@mcalex I didn't say it was exactly the same in every way. Semantically, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It's like 'too' versus 'also, style and feeling are different but not meaning. A counter example is that the 'but' in "all but one" cannot be replaced with 'and' without changing the meaning.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
I agree with Michael Rybkin. I think that "but" is used as conjuction there.
At least according to the meaning established in the Oxford Dictionary
but [conjuction]
Used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.
‘he stumbled but didn't fall’
‘this is one principle, but it is not
the only one’
‘the food is cheap but delicious’
‘the problem is not
that they are cutting down trees, but that they are doing it in a
predatory way’
contrast
The state of being strikingly different from something else in
juxtaposition or close association.
Some parts [horse-like] are strikingly different from the other parts [eagle-like].
I have highlighted an specific example above where you can observe that the verb is used only once, the ellipsis mentioned by @Tᴚoɯɐuo
The food is cheap but delicious.
The food is cheap but (it's) delicious.
You got the same case in your example. Let's simplify
They had horse-like bodies but eagle-like heads.
They had horse-like bodies but (they had) eagle-like heads.
answered yesterday
RubioRic
3,8651931
1
Right, I meant "conjunction". I don't know why I wrote "preposition". I was focused more on the semantics. I thought that if the OP understood what the sentence was saying, it wouldn't really matter whether but was used as a conjunction or preposition. Thanks for alerting me to this.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
1
@MichaelRybkin Ok, then I meant "agree" :-)
– RubioRic
yesterday
2
You could replace 'but' with 'and' here and it wouldn't change the meaning.
– JimmyJames
23 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames not quite. Using 'but' gives the reader an expectation that something unusual is coming, while using 'and' makes it a straight up description. It's essentially stylistic, but 'but' does make a difference.
– mcalex
15 hours ago
@mcalex I didn't say it was exactly the same in every way. Semantically, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It's like 'too' versus 'also, style and feeling are different but not meaning. A counter example is that the 'but' in "all but one" cannot be replaced with 'and' without changing the meaning.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
up vote
19
down vote
accepted
I agree with Michael Rybkin. I think that "but" is used as conjuction there.
At least according to the meaning established in the Oxford Dictionary
but [conjuction]
Used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.
‘he stumbled but didn't fall’
‘this is one principle, but it is not
the only one’
‘the food is cheap but delicious’
‘the problem is not
that they are cutting down trees, but that they are doing it in a
predatory way’
contrast
The state of being strikingly different from something else in
juxtaposition or close association.
Some parts [horse-like] are strikingly different from the other parts [eagle-like].
I have highlighted an specific example above where you can observe that the verb is used only once, the ellipsis mentioned by @Tᴚoɯɐuo
The food is cheap but delicious.
The food is cheap but (it's) delicious.
You got the same case in your example. Let's simplify
They had horse-like bodies but eagle-like heads.
They had horse-like bodies but (they had) eagle-like heads.
answered yesterday
RubioRic
3,8651931
I agree with Michael Rybkin. I think that "but" is used as conjuction there.
At least according to the meaning established in the Oxford Dictionary
but [conjuction]
Used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.
‘he stumbled but didn't fall’
‘this is one principle, but it is not
the only one’
‘the food is cheap but delicious’
‘the problem is not
that they are cutting down trees, but that they are doing it in a
predatory way’
contrast
The state of being strikingly different from something else in
juxtaposition or close association.
Some parts [horse-like] are strikingly different from the other parts [eagle-like].
I have highlighted an specific example above where you can observe that the verb is used only once, the ellipsis mentioned by @Tᴚoɯɐuo
The food is cheap but delicious.
The food is cheap but (it's) delicious.
You got the same case in your example. Let's simplify
They had horse-like bodies but eagle-like heads.
They had horse-like bodies but (they had) eagle-like heads.
answered yesterday
RubioRic
3,8651931
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
RubioRic
3,8651931
answered yesterday
RubioRic
3,8651931
answered yesterday
RubioRic
3,8651931
3,8651931
1
Right, I meant "conjunction". I don't know why I wrote "preposition". I was focused more on the semantics. I thought that if the OP understood what the sentence was saying, it wouldn't really matter whether but was used as a conjunction or preposition. Thanks for alerting me to this.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
1
@MichaelRybkin Ok, then I meant "agree" :-)
– RubioRic
yesterday
2
You could replace 'but' with 'and' here and it wouldn't change the meaning.
– JimmyJames
23 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames not quite. Using 'but' gives the reader an expectation that something unusual is coming, while using 'and' makes it a straight up description. It's essentially stylistic, but 'but' does make a difference.
– mcalex
15 hours ago
@mcalex I didn't say it was exactly the same in every way. Semantically, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It's like 'too' versus 'also, style and feeling are different but not meaning. A counter example is that the 'but' in "all but one" cannot be replaced with 'and' without changing the meaning.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
Right, I meant "conjunction". I don't know why I wrote "preposition". I was focused more on the semantics. I thought that if the OP understood what the sentence was saying, it wouldn't really matter whether but was used as a conjunction or preposition. Thanks for alerting me to this.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
1
@MichaelRybkin Ok, then I meant "agree" :-)
– RubioRic
yesterday
2
You could replace 'but' with 'and' here and it wouldn't change the meaning.
– JimmyJames
23 hours ago
1
@JimmyJames not quite. Using 'but' gives the reader an expectation that something unusual is coming, while using 'and' makes it a straight up description. It's essentially stylistic, but 'but' does make a difference.
– mcalex
15 hours ago
@mcalex I didn't say it was exactly the same in every way. Semantically, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It's like 'too' versus 'also, style and feeling are different but not meaning. A counter example is that the 'but' in "all but one" cannot be replaced with 'and' without changing the meaning.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
1
1
Right, I meant "conjunction". I don't know why I wrote "preposition". I was focused more on the semantics. I thought that if the OP understood what the sentence was saying, it wouldn't really matter whether but was used as a conjunction or preposition. Thanks for alerting me to this.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
Right, I meant "conjunction". I don't know why I wrote "preposition". I was focused more on the semantics. I thought that if the OP understood what the sentence was saying, it wouldn't really matter whether but was used as a conjunction or preposition. Thanks for alerting me to this.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
1
1
@MichaelRybkin Ok, then I meant "agree" :-)
– RubioRic
yesterday
@MichaelRybkin Ok, then I meant "agree" :-)
– RubioRic
yesterday
2
2
You could replace 'but' with 'and' here and it wouldn't change the meaning.
– JimmyJames
23 hours ago
You could replace 'but' with 'and' here and it wouldn't change the meaning.
– JimmyJames
23 hours ago
1
1
@JimmyJames not quite. Using 'but' gives the reader an expectation that something unusual is coming, while using 'and' makes it a straight up description. It's essentially stylistic, but 'but' does make a difference.
– mcalex
15 hours ago
@JimmyJames not quite. Using 'but' gives the reader an expectation that something unusual is coming, while using 'and' makes it a straight up description. It's essentially stylistic, but 'but' does make a difference.
– mcalex
15 hours ago
@mcalex I didn't say it was exactly the same in every way. Semantically, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It's like 'too' versus 'also, style and feeling are different but not meaning. A counter example is that the 'but' in "all but one" cannot be replaced with 'and' without changing the meaning.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
@mcalex I didn't say it was exactly the same in every way. Semantically, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. It's like 'too' versus 'also, style and feeling are different but not meaning. A counter example is that the 'but' in "all but one" cannot be replaced with 'and' without changing the meaning.
– JimmyJames
5 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
It had the head of a man but (had) the body of a lion.
It is a kind of ellipsis, I think. Perhaps there is a narrower technical term for it. The verb had is understood to govern both objects, the head of a man and the body of a lion.
So that but there joins two clauses in one of which the verb is merely understood to be present.
answered yesterday
Tᴚoɯɐuo
102k676167
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
It had the head of a man but (had) the body of a lion.
It is a kind of ellipsis, I think. Perhaps there is a narrower technical term for it. The verb had is understood to govern both objects, the head of a man and the body of a lion.
So that but there joins two clauses in one of which the verb is merely understood to be present.
answered yesterday
Tᴚoɯɐuo
102k676167
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
It had the head of a man but (had) the body of a lion.
It is a kind of ellipsis, I think. Perhaps there is a narrower technical term for it. The verb had is understood to govern both objects, the head of a man and the body of a lion.
So that but there joins two clauses in one of which the verb is merely understood to be present.
answered yesterday
Tᴚoɯɐuo
102k676167
It had the head of a man but (had) the body of a lion.
It is a kind of ellipsis, I think. Perhaps there is a narrower technical term for it. The verb had is understood to govern both objects, the head of a man and the body of a lion.
So that but there joins two clauses in one of which the verb is merely understood to be present.
answered yesterday
Tᴚoɯɐuo
102k676167
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Tᴚoɯɐuo
102k676167
answered yesterday
Tᴚoɯɐuo
102k676167
answered yesterday
Tᴚoɯɐuo
102k676167
102k676167
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Do you think you will better understand it if I restructure your quote like this:
Question: They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of what?
Answer: Of horses.
Question: But what did they have the front legs, wings and heads of?
Answer: Of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes.
Thus, technically speaking, but as used in your passage is a conjunction. It's making a contrast between different body parts that the creatures they're talking about have. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts which are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
answered yesterday
Michael Rybkin
25.6k10101219
1
Oh, it's an interesting use! I think I get it. Are you saying: they had bodies (of horses), hind legs(of horses) and tails of horses, but had the front legs(of xxx giant eagles), wings(xxx giant eagles) and heads of xxx giant eagles?
– dan
yesterday
1
Exactly. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts that are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Do you think you will better understand it if I restructure your quote like this:
Question: They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of what?
Answer: Of horses.
Question: But what did they have the front legs, wings and heads of?
Answer: Of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes.
Thus, technically speaking, but as used in your passage is a conjunction. It's making a contrast between different body parts that the creatures they're talking about have. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts which are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
answered yesterday
Michael Rybkin
25.6k10101219
1
Oh, it's an interesting use! I think I get it. Are you saying: they had bodies (of horses), hind legs(of horses) and tails of horses, but had the front legs(of xxx giant eagles), wings(xxx giant eagles) and heads of xxx giant eagles?
– dan
yesterday
1
Exactly. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts that are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Do you think you will better understand it if I restructure your quote like this:
Question: They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of what?
Answer: Of horses.
Question: But what did they have the front legs, wings and heads of?
Answer: Of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes.
Thus, technically speaking, but as used in your passage is a conjunction. It's making a contrast between different body parts that the creatures they're talking about have. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts which are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
answered yesterday
Michael Rybkin
25.6k10101219
Do you think you will better understand it if I restructure your quote like this:
Question: They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of what?
Answer: Of horses.
Question: But what did they have the front legs, wings and heads of?
Answer: Of what seemed to be giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes.
Thus, technically speaking, but as used in your passage is a conjunction. It's making a contrast between different body parts that the creatures they're talking about have. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts which are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
answered yesterday
Michael Rybkin
25.6k10101219
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Michael Rybkin
25.6k10101219
answered yesterday
Michael Rybkin
25.6k10101219
answered yesterday
Michael Rybkin
25.6k10101219
25.6k10101219
1
Oh, it's an interesting use! I think I get it. Are you saying: they had bodies (of horses), hind legs(of horses) and tails of horses, but had the front legs(of xxx giant eagles), wings(xxx giant eagles) and heads of xxx giant eagles?
– dan
yesterday
1
Exactly. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts that are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
add a comment |
1
Oh, it's an interesting use! I think I get it. Are you saying: they had bodies (of horses), hind legs(of horses) and tails of horses, but had the front legs(of xxx giant eagles), wings(xxx giant eagles) and heads of xxx giant eagles?
– dan
yesterday
1
Exactly. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts that are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
1
1
Oh, it's an interesting use! I think I get it. Are you saying: they had bodies (of horses), hind legs(of horses) and tails of horses, but had the front legs(of xxx giant eagles), wings(xxx giant eagles) and heads of xxx giant eagles?
– dan
yesterday
Oh, it's an interesting use! I think I get it. Are you saying: they had bodies (of horses), hind legs(of horses) and tails of horses, but had the front legs(of xxx giant eagles), wings(xxx giant eagles) and heads of xxx giant eagles?
– dan
yesterday
1
1
Exactly. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts that are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
Exactly. The body parts that are listed at the beginning are those of horses, but the body parts that are listed later are like those that giant eagles have.
– Michael Rybkin
yesterday
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f185692%2fhelp-to-understand-the-use-of-but-in-this-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
I wish to add this: I am a native speaker, but I had a bit of difficulty parsing this sentence at first reading. I would have preferred "They had the bodies, hind legs and tails of horses; but the front legs, wings and heads were those of giant eagles, with cruel, steel-coloured beaks and large, brilliantly orange eyes."
– trlkly
19 hours ago