Sure, Geoff.

Stylistically, notice that the skeleton of the sentence is build around two instances of the verb “to be”—the prototypical light verb, one lacking in semantic content. As a result of that decision, concepts that express the real activity in the sentence are expressed as abstract nouns or gerunds. The second gerund (“being a man of true worth”) is worse than the first. It’s particularly unfortunate in that using a gerund here requires repeated “of” phrases in succession. Additionally (and this may just be my personal preference), I find, as a general rule, that gerunds read better as subjects than as objects of prepositions.

If we start playing with the sentence structure to try to fix some of these problems, other issues start turning up that are somewhat concealed by the original phrasing.

For example (see, I started a sentence with “for”!), lets change “is a reminder” to “reminds,” getting rid of the first light verb. We then have to decide what to make the object of the verb. What does the author mean by “to all”? Are we talking about the community of people in Beowulf? The original audience of the poem? Human beings generally? If the author has the last one in mind, we could say “this quote reminds us that.” But if so, the author is effectively quote-mining Beowulf for tidy, didactic, moral lessons, a practice that should not be acceptable in an AP-level course. (This is partly what I had in mind when I called the passage inane.) If one of the other interpretations was intended, then the author is unacceptably vague, and has further chosen a subject for his or her sentence that misleads the reader into assuming that the universal interpretation is intended. If you say “this quote reminds,” you are implying that we’re discussing the quote as an isolated entity, rather than for its relevance to the poem itself.

Additional stylistic problems include the awkward repetition of “this quote” as the subject of two successive sentences and the reliance on cliched phrasing (best of man…worst of man; through tick and thin).

Now let’s turn to the core proposition of the sentence: "standing by each other, through thick and thin, is the true test of being a man of worth."

“Each other” is a reciprocal expression. It requires a plural antecedent. (cf., *Bob helped each other). And while it’s true that antecedent here is “to all,” we immediately shift to talking about “a man.” On the surface level, that’s a noun-noun agreement error, but if we fix it at that level, we highlight the sexism inherent in the sentence: all = men.

As is so often the case, the cliche substitutes for clear thought. Standing by someone during the “thick” (i.e., good) times is not the point here. The real issue is how you treat your companions when you’re all in extreme danger. And although I’m not sure exactly what lines are under discussion (perhaps something from Wiglaf in his final speech?), it’s clear that the author has abstracted the situation and denuded it of the military context of the original. Facing grave danger in battle has become merely “standing by each other.” Like so many students, the writer takes refuge in vague generalities.

Beyond all this, there’s the question of how the two sentences at issue are logically linked. My problem with “for” is not syntactic but semantic. Here’s the structure:

Proposition 1: The quote illustrates both the best and worst qualities of man.

 - Because - 

Proposition 2: It reminds us that the worthy man stands by his companions in all circumstances.

Proposition 2 is not a logical explanation of proposition 1. It doesn’t show both the best and worst qualities. At most it shows one positive quality. The author may have some fuzzy notion that, by emphasizing the quality of steadfast devotion to one’s companions as the measure of the heroic warrior, the passage simultaneously marks cowardice as the ordinary condition of men, but nothing close to that is ever expressed. It seems more likely that the author is making a series of unconnected statements and slapping a connecting word on to give the semblance of a link. (More inanity.)

Side note: does the author really want to say that the quote illustrates these qualities, or is the quote actually asserting something about the nature of these qualities?

Karl

On Oct 5, 2014, at 7:38 AM, Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Karl - I'm curious about your finding the clause "inane and stylistically inept." Could you comment on that some more?
> 
> > Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 07:26:25 -0700
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Advice!
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > 
> > The sentence is not a fragment. It’s inane and stylistically inept, but it’s syntactically complete.
> > 
> > The matrix of the main clause follows a subject-linking verb-complement structure: “this quote is a reminder …”
> > 
> > The complement contains a content clause. The subject of the content clause is a gerund phrase: “standing by each other”, and the verb in this clause is finite, as it should be.
> > 
> > There are multiple issues with this sentence, in style and substance, that go far beyond anything a simple fix could do even it were a fragment.
> > 
> > A side note: I’m curious if the teacher marked the sentence this way because of “for”. I’ve run across teachers in the past who mark sentences beginning with the FANBOYS words as incorrect because they believe that such creates a fragment. 
> > 
> > On Oct 5, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Geoffrey Layton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm a member of a listserve populated by AP English teachers (primarily lit but also comp), and the following issue has recently arisen. Please comment - I would very much appreciate it (I won't tell you how I commented just yet - I'd like to get your views): 
> > > 
> > > Please read the following and tell me if you would consider the last sentence a fragment:
> > > 
> > > "This quote from Beowulf exemplifies not only the best of man but he worst of man as well. For this quote is a reminder to all that standing by each other, through thick and thin,is the real test of being a man of true worth." 
> > > 
> > > The paper from which this is taken is extremely weak in content, wording, and mechanics.This is marked as a fragment and with two fatal errors (she has another which the parent admits is a fragment), the rubric being used gives the student a score of 50 and, of course, the parent is questing (sic) this one sentence and is thinking it if it is changed to non-fragment her daughter will receive a B on the paper--but that is another argument.
> > > Please respond ASAP. The principal, the teacher who scored the essay, the parent, and I have a meeting Monday. Exams are Wednesday and Momma wants a B.
> > > 
> > > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
> > > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> > 
> > To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> > http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
> > and select "Join or leave the list"
> > 
> > Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
> To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"
> Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/