0
Jooney Posted 14 years ago
Grammar
Put a public face on and what
Hi,
Memories are still fresh of the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit filed in April 2010 accusing Goldman of fraud, after it sold clients complicated mortgage backed securities that later soured, and never mentioned that it had bet against them.
The parade of senior Goldman executives who testified before Congress after the case arose seemed to put a public face on what had been a broader sense of distrust of Wall Street in the aftermath of the financial crisis, focusing ever more attention on a firm whose patriarchs had been adamant about having high standards.
Q1) What does "to put a public face on something" mean? I'm familiar with the phrase, "to put on a game face", but not this one. Could someone explain its meaing to me please?
Q2) Can the fused relative word "what" be replaced with "the lawsuit(the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit that filed in April 2010) that"?
Q3) How should I interpret "a broader sense of distrust of Wall Street"?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Memories are still fresh of the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit filed in April 2010 accusing Goldman of fraud, after it sold clients complicated mortgage backed securities that later soured, and never mentioned that it had bet against them.
The parade of senior Goldman executives who testified before Congress after the case arose seemed to put a public face on what had been a broader sense of distrust of Wall Street in the aftermath of the financial crisis, focusing ever more attention on a firm whose patriarchs had been adamant about having high standards.
Q1) What does "to put a public face on something" mean? I'm familiar with the phrase, "to put on a game face", but not this one. Could someone explain its meaing to me please?
Q2) Can the fused relative word "what" be replaced with "the lawsuit(the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit that filed in April 2010) that"?
Q3) How should I interpret "a broader sense of distrust of Wall Street"?
Thank you in advance for your help.
Top answer
jooney ... seemed to put a public face on what had been ... 1.
- jooney ...
- seemed to put a public face on what had been ...
- 1.
- ] 2.
- You mean the underlined what, I suppose.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
7 Answers
0
jooney ... seemed to put a public face on what had been ...1. ... seemed to make specific and concrete for the public (in the form of executives) something that had been [only a vague, abstract sense of distrust ...]
2. You mean the underlined what, I suppose. No. It's not the lawsuit. It's much more vague than that - hardly more than a pl
00
To me the bolded type doesn't really make any sense. The reason might be that this is a sensitive topic, under litigation, and so a professional business writer must be careful when discussing it, and might therefore write stuff that seems profound, but really makes no sense at all, in order to avoid putting his foot in his mouth and saying things that will come back to haunt him later.
00
AnonymousTo me the bolded type doesn't really make any sense. The reason might be that this is a sensitive topic, ...That's an interesting back story. It hadn't occurred to me that this interpretation was possible. I've been following much of the news on this topic, so maybe that's why I thought it made sense.
00
0
Thank you very much for your answer, CJ.
Your explanation made it really clear so, I have no further questions. But the whole sentence seems to be profoundly written, as the anonymous pointed out.
Your explanation made it really clear so, I have no further questions. But the whole sentence seems to be profoundly written, as the anonymous pointed out.
00
jooneyThe understood subject of this participial clause is the testimony of senior Goldman executives, correct?Yes, "the parade", as the author so colorfully puts it.
00
Related Questions