Page 1 of 1

Precognition

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 6:43 pm
by brogine
The following is from Time Magazine of August 6 of this year (p.44). "If that holds true for multipartner unions as well, then Brown and his ilk have reason to be encouraged."
Perhaps I am too fussy - there is certainly no problem understanding the meaning - but I kinda like it when things make sense. I would be most interested in any comments.

Re: Precognition

Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 7:03 pm
by Slava
Please explain what you are getting at here. I do not in the least understand anything about this post.

Re: Precognition

Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:00 am
by bnjtokyo
Please give us more context!

Not being a subscriber to Time, the weekly fiction magazine, I cannot read the whole article. But the teaser makes it clear that the subject matter is polygamy. (The title is "I do, I do, I do, I do.")

I do not see what the grammar issue is here although I guess we could object to the use of "that" to refer to some nebulous concept.

It is not a grammatical issue, but it is typical of Time to editorialize by using "ilk" (with its disparaging connotation) instead of a more neutral term such as "kind" or "character."

(I don't read Time precisely because it often inserts an editorial point of view into what should be straight reportage.)

Re: Precognition

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:15 pm
by brogine
It seems to me that the first clause refers to a possible future situation, while the dependent clause is in the present tense. "if we win the game, I feel great."
Will no one second the motion?

Re: Precognition

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:56 pm
by bnjtokyo
I don't see why the first clause has to refer to a future situation. Much depends on what "that" refers to.

Imagine you are Lewis (of Lewis and Clark) writing to the President from near the head waters of the Missouri River in 1804. (I think that is the right year.) You are getting ready to cross the Continental Divide over to the Pacific drainage, and, although you haven't been there before, you expect to follow the Columbia River to the Pacific. You might write "The Missouri has been navigable almost to the headwaters. If that holds true for the Columbia as well, we have reason to be encouraged." Here "that" refers to the amenability of the upper reaches of a river to navigation, a quality that exists whether or not anyone has ever been there. It is not future or past, it is a matter of an essentially timeless factual situation.

Re: Precognition

Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:57 pm
by Slava
I don't see a future in there, just the present.

If it does, then they do have.

The added example is of the same ilk. I like such-and-such team so much I feel I'm a member. If we win, I feel great.

Re: Precognition

Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:28 pm
by brogine
I seem to be outnumbered by intelligent people. (How unusual!) Well, I would still have preferred, "...will have reason...." The 'holding true', after all, will take place in the future.
Anyway, thanks a lot.

Re: Precognition

Posted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:31 pm
by Philip Hudson
One reader, who thinks he has some modicum of intelligence, is "plum stonnied" about the entire topic.