What literary purpose is served by not having a verb at the end of the sentence?


おはよう！

I've been coming across this written construction more and more and while it
probably doesn't change anything grammar-wise, I wonder what parts of the
sentences are stressed by changing the sentence structure. It looks a literary
device but I'm not sure what is being emphasized.

E.g.

> 取｛と｝り入｛い｝れた外気｛がいき｝は血液｛けつえき｝に。(1)

I assume the literal meaning is the same as

> 血液に取り入れた外気がある（ものだ）。(2)

(fairly neutral statement)

or

> 外気は血液に取り入れた。(3)

(more emphasis on 外気 because of は)

The difference between 2 and 3 is clear, but what about 1? は, the topic
subject particle, stresses 外気 all the same. What changes between (1) and (3)
(beyond just looking more 'try-hard' and bookish)?

Thank you! (edited out the misused Japanese phrase, thank you for the tip Mr.
l'électeur!)




I can't say assertively without seeing the context, but your interpretation of
(1) seems wrong.

"取り入れた外気は血液に" is missing a verb. You are right. But what's missing here is, I
guess, "送られる," "流れ込む," "吸収される,"or something. If so, this sentence is
explaining how human body takes oxygen from the air into the blood.

Why do they omit verbs once in a while? One reason is to improve the rhythm of
the writing. For example, from the top of my head, a paragraph including this
sentence could be like this:

"血液循環の仕組みはこうだ。取り入れた外気は血液に。血液は全身に。血液の中の老廃物は尿に。(This is how blood circulation
works: The air taken from outside is sent into the blood. The blood is brought
to the entire body. The waste in the blood is discharged as urine.)"

Of course, you could write this sentence without any omission:

"血液循環の仕組みはこうだ。取り入れた外気は血液に **吸収される** 。血液は全身に **送られる** 。血液の中の老廃物は尿に **なって体外へ出る**
。"

Which do you like? I think the former looks cool because the three sentences
in the paragraph end with "に," which is similar to the idea of rhyming. Makes
sense?

