0
Park sang joon Posted 11 years ago
Grammar

The implicit verb be

While orthodox historians view the dispute as a matter of whether or not to invade Korea, the provocation against Korea in 1876 supports the claim that the Iwakura party never disagreed on the validity on an attack. Revisionists see the Seikanron as not a dispute of whether to invade, but instead when and who to do it. The former because those returning from the Iwakura Mission believed that Japan was too weak to attract international attention and needed to focus on internal reforms, the latter because the separation of the government between the caretaker government and the Iwakura groups allowed power-struggle between them.

I think "was" is implied before two "because."
And I was wandering why this is possible.
Thank you in advance for your help.
  

Top answer

" Isn't the dispute between orthodox historians and revisionists still going on? The former/latter elision of words is simply a well-known rhetorical device. The reactionaries and the progressives were locked in political struggle.

— Deadrat

  • " Isn't the dispute between orthodox historians and revisionists still going on?
  • The former/latter elision of words is simply a well-known rhetorical device.
  • The reactionaries and the progressives were locked in political struggle.
  • The former voted in favor of higher tariffs; the latter, against.
  • Here the missing word "voted" is implied before against.
Free · every Monday

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
I think the verb implied is the present tense "is." Isn't the dispute between orthodox historians and revisionists still going on?

The former/latter elision of words is simply a well-known rhetorical device.

The reactionaries and the progressives were locked in political struggle. The former voted in favor of higher tariffs; the latter, against.

Here the
0

Related Questions