0
Johnson13 Posted 13 years ago
Grammar
is recorded 70 years earlier than the others
lo and behold: All that can be said with certainty about the derivation of the words and their mutual relations seems to be that -al is recorded 70 years earlier than the others.
The act of recording, or being recorded, is clearly said to have happened a certain time before, why IS RECORDED but not WAS RECORDED? The only reason I can think of is, the writer thinks things inside works are timeless and he prefers the present tense; do you think this explanation has weight?
The act of recording, or being recorded, is clearly said to have happened a certain time before, why IS RECORDED but not WAS RECORDED? The only reason I can think of is, the writer thinks things inside works are timeless and he prefers the present tense; do you think this explanation has weight?
Top answer
Yes. The record still exists. I don't understand the connection between "lo and behold" and the explanation that follows.
- Yes.
- The record still exists.
- I don't understand the connection between "lo and behold" and the explanation that follows.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
1 Answers
0
Yes. The record still exists.
I don't understand the connection between "lo and behold" and the explanation that follows.
I don't understand the connection between "lo and behold" and the explanation that follows.
0
Related Questions