Wholegrain Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
Did I understand this extract?
FULL EXTRACT
"Ah, Mr. Roberts, I trust you are not one of those business men, who make a business of never having to do with unfortunates. For God's sake don't leave me. I have something on my heart--on my heart. Under deplorable circumstances thrown among strangers, utter strangers. I want a friend in whom I may confide. Yours, Mr. Roberts, is almost the first known face I've seen for many weeks."
"It was so sudden an outburst; the interview offered such a contrast to the scene around, that the merchant, though not used to be very indiscreet, yet, being not entirely inhumane, remained not entirely unmoved."
-------------------
Did I understand well?
It was so sudden an outburst; the interview offered such a contrast to the scene around, that the merchant, though not used to be very indiscreet[=used to be little indiscreet], yet, being not entirely inhumane[=being a little humane], remained not entirely unmoved.
Can we also say: "(...) though not used to be very indiscreet and being not entirely inhumane(...)"
and "(...) though not used to be very indiscreet, yet being not entirely inhumane(...)"?????
Well, I don't think we can say the former though, it seems the second proposition is contradicting the first statement.
"Ah, Mr. Roberts, I trust you are not one of those business men, who make a business of never having to do with unfortunates. For God's sake don't leave me. I have something on my heart--on my heart. Under deplorable circumstances thrown among strangers, utter strangers. I want a friend in whom I may confide. Yours, Mr. Roberts, is almost the first known face I've seen for many weeks."
"It was so sudden an outburst; the interview offered such a contrast to the scene around, that the merchant, though not used to be very indiscreet, yet, being not entirely inhumane, remained not entirely unmoved."
-------------------
Did I understand well?
It was so sudden an outburst; the interview offered such a contrast to the scene around, that the merchant, though not used to be very indiscreet[=used to be little indiscreet], yet, being not entirely inhumane[=being a little humane], remained not entirely unmoved.
Can we also say: "(...) though not used to be very indiscreet and being not entirely inhumane(...)"
and "(...) though not used to be very indiscreet, yet being not entirely inhumane(...)"?????
Well, I don't think we can say the former though, it seems the second proposition is contradicting the first statement.
Top answer
I can understand why you're not sure you understand. I'm not sure I do, either . It is a jumble of negatives that is very confusing.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
0
I can understand why you're not sure you understand. I'm not sure I do, either. It is a jumble of negatives that is very confusing. It sounds like it was written by a politician, trying to avoid any absolute statements. Something like using "We are not entirely unapologetic" to say "we are sorry."
Here's my interpretation:
The merchant is usually discreet, but also som
Here's my interpretation:
The merchant is usually discreet, but also som
00
Does he mean because he was used to being discreet, he was able to stay apathetic most of the time, but because he was still human, he was moved?
0