Take with salt; mind the edges.
“Heart throbs eternally, mind reflects victoriously and human system cajoles euphorously for the conjointed job that resulted in winning”
You make up two words - "euphorously" and "conjointed." Euphorically and conjoined, respectively, are the correct words. That said, "conjoined" is poor diction.
You need to establish generic particular scope in order to make generalizations - i.e.; "The heart throbs eternally;" "The mind reflects victoriously;" etc.
And you have comma splices between each clause. "The heart throbs eternally" is an independent clause, as is "the mind reflects victoriously," as is "the human system cajoles euphorically."
The word "cajoles" does not mean what you think. To cajole is to pester, to coax - its usage is malapropos. One does not cajole euphorically simply to cajole, one cajoles someone else.
Altogether, in order to make this quote grammatically correct, it should be written:
"The heart throbs eternally; the mind reflects victoriously; and the human system cajoles euphorically for the conjoined job that resulted in winning."
Even then, this does not make sense. For the heart, eternally, to throb at victory, and the mind to reflect, and the human system (whatsoever that may be) to cajole with euphoria, at a conjoined job (which implies a couple of jobs mashed together) that "resulted" in winning... It is contradictory and out of tense. Each part described acts upon a work that resulted in victory.
This ultimately reads "the heart throbs forever and the mind thinks to create victory and humanity (I presume) coaxes happily for/on/about (you have three clauses each demanding a different preposition) a set of stuck-together jobs that resulted in winning."
And what am I to derive from that?
I know what you mean to say; I am not trying to be mean. You are saying that a joyful heart, a peaceful and thoughtful mind, and human celebration follow victory. But your words mean something entirely confusing and distant - they are not pedantic, they are wrong.
------------
Keep in mind you need "the" in order to make generalizations. Thus "The [q]uality of any performance is exhibited in accordance with unity and chemistry that its ingredients possess."
And this sentence is dense. You mean to say "The quality of performance is determined by the unity and chemistry of the individuals involved." Instead you say (literally) "Quality of performance (in general) is made seen by unity and chemistry possessed by the ingredients of quality." There is antecedent error - quality is the grammatical antecedent, but you mean the "ingredients" of the performance.
Here, it says unity and chemistry are agents of quality described by some ingredients. It is a recipe for confusion.
Simplify your words. It is complexity of thought and correct diction which makes strong writing - obversely, complex words and obfuscated thought produce insulting and confusing work.
Likewise, minds and hearts are two co-relative terms that cannot be detached psychologically to uphold a qualitative performance.
Second verse, same as the first. Improper plurality - "mind
I have read enough.
You need to simplify your language and perfect your ideas. While you are thinking meaningfully, you are writing poorly - you misuse prepositions (or lack them where needed), you misuse words, you choose words poorly, you write non sequiturs back-to-back...
Thought. It is raw. It is not wrapped in fancy language. It is impulse - quite literally. And so you should write: raw, impulsive, with words which you understand, words which are suitable - even if not always colloquial. Right now, this is a dictionary cross-reference manual with mismatched pages. Not to say you should not use a dictionary to improve your writing. There is nothing wrong with vocabulary. But use it correctly; use it wisely; foster it carefully and appropriately.
I would be more than happy to see this again, revised and colloquial.
~Skorlir
Points: 1115
Reviews: 83
Donate