0
Palinkasocsi Posted 18 years ago
Grammar
as I have mentioned
Dear Friends,
My question is: what "as I have mentioned in the Introduction" (in relation to its position to "is") could refer to in the following:
1. One immediate problem with the traditional view, as I have mentioned in the Introduction, is that it cannot account for metaphors.
2. One immediate problem with the traditional view is, as I have mentioned in the Introduction, that it cannot account for metaphors.
Can anyone see any difference as to what "as I have mentioned in the Introduction" refers to? (My guess is that they refer to defferent things.)
Many thanks!
P.
My question is: what "as I have mentioned in the Introduction" (in relation to its position to "is") could refer to in the following:
1. One immediate problem with the traditional view, as I have mentioned in the Introduction, is that it cannot account for metaphors.
2. One immediate problem with the traditional view is, as I have mentioned in the Introduction, that it cannot account for metaphors.
Can anyone see any difference as to what "as I have mentioned in the Introduction" refers to? (My guess is that they refer to defferent things.)
Many thanks!
P.
Top answer
My view is that there's no difference at all, except that the second version is more awkward. There's nothing else it can possibly refer to. In the introduction, you mentioned that the problem is (that it cannot account for metaphors).
- My view is that there's no difference at all, except that the second version is more awkward.
- There's nothing else it can possibly refer to.
- In the introduction, you mentioned that the problem is (that it cannot account for metaphors).
- In other words, you're saying parenthetically that the statement you're making right now (all of it) you've already mentioned in the intro.
- If you were to say, "the traditional view, which I mentioned in the introduction," then perhaps you could argue that only the traditional view was mentioned, and not the problem.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
My view is that there's no difference at all, except that the second version is more awkward.
There's nothing else it can possibly refer to. In the introduction, you mentioned that the problem is (that it cannot account for metaphors).
In other words, you're saying parenthetically that the statement you're making right now (all of it) you've already mentioned in the intr
There's nothing else it can possibly refer to. In the introduction, you mentioned that the problem is (that it cannot account for metaphors).
In other words, you're saying parenthetically that the statement you're making right now (all of it) you've already mentioned in the intr
00
How about this line of thought:
In
1. One immediate problem with the traditional view, as I have mentioned in the Introduction, is that it cannot account for metaphors.
"as I have mentioned in the Introduction" is referring to the fact that the problem was labeled "immediate" - that is, it is not so much about stating that I have mentioned the problem itse
In
1. One immediate problem with the traditional view, as I have mentioned in the Introduction, is that it cannot account for metaphors.
"as I have mentioned in the Introduction" is referring to the fact that the problem was labeled "immediate" - that is, it is not so much about stating that I have mentioned the problem itse
00
Are you suggesting that the intro only said, "Hey guys, there are some immediate problems with this traditional view. Stay tuned, and I'll tell you what they are." In other words, the statement in the intro (as I have mentioned) is, "Yes, there are some immediate problems here."
??
I'll agree that would be possible, but I believe the native ear would take "is" bef
??
I'll agree that would be possible, but I believe the native ear would take "is" bef
00
"Hey guys, there are some immediate problems with this traditional view. Stay tuned, and I'll tell you what they are." Good sense of humour. I like it.
One last thing: Don't you think 1. could be interpreted as referring to the criticism in the Introduction being labeled as "immediate"? Because originally (in the Introduction) the criticism was NOT labeled "immediate".
Anyways, tha
One last thing: Don't you think 1. could be interpreted as referring to the criticism in the Introduction being labeled as "immediate"? Because originally (in the Introduction) the criticism was NOT labeled "immediate".
Anyways, tha
0
Related Questions