0
Anonymous Posted 16 years ago
Grammar
This sentence doesn't make sense to me.
Ok, this is a bit convoluted, but indulge me.
"The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and
therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but
sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state
of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so
has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him,
or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his
quarrel"
The part that confuses me is "and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him". What I think is meant (and the only thing that makes sense) is that the first man has exposed his life to the second man's power to take the first's life away because he declared war on the second, since the writer thinks it's unjust for one to declare war on another.
Now, the problem is that what the sentence literally says, at least to me, is that the first man has exposed his own life to the second man's power to have his life taken away ("his" being the second man's life, not the the first man's, since it says that it's the "other's", the second man's, power to be taken away, not the first's) by "him" (I'm not sure who this refers to in this case). Clearly this doesn't make any sense at all.
The only way I can make sense of this is if the second "to" in the confusing part I quoted above is being used to mean "with the result of" or "with the goal of" like it is in the sentence "I brought Jim here to learn", rather than it being used in the way its normally used when you see it written the way it is in the quote ("I have the power to speak", "I have the time to go", etc); the sentence then reads "and so [he] has exposed his life to the other's power with result of it being taken away by him (the second man)."
This might be confusing, but could someone explain in detail exactly what's going on here grammatically so that this makes sense? Thanks.
"The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and
therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but
sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state
of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so
has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him,
or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his
quarrel"
The part that confuses me is "and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him". What I think is meant (and the only thing that makes sense) is that the first man has exposed his life to the second man's power to take the first's life away because he declared war on the second, since the writer thinks it's unjust for one to declare war on another.
Now, the problem is that what the sentence literally says, at least to me, is that the first man has exposed his own life to the second man's power to have his life taken away ("his" being the second man's life, not the the first man's, since it says that it's the "other's", the second man's, power to be taken away, not the first's) by "him" (I'm not sure who this refers to in this case). Clearly this doesn't make any sense at all.
The only way I can make sense of this is if the second "to" in the confusing part I quoted above is being used to mean "with the result of" or "with the goal of" like it is in the sentence "I brought Jim here to learn", rather than it being used in the way its normally used when you see it written the way it is in the quote ("I have the power to speak", "I have the time to go", etc); the sentence then reads "and so [he] has exposed his life to the other's power with result of it being taken away by him (the second man)."
This might be confusing, but could someone explain in detail exactly what's going on here grammatically so that this makes sense? Thanks.
Top answer
Hard to believe it's all one sentence - but where's the period? The first "him" has no antecedent - at least, none that's printed. " In sorting out all the "he's" and "him's" and "his's," the word "defence" is confusing, because it implies the victim.
- Hard to believe it's all one sentence - but where's the period?
- The first "him" has no antecedent - at least, none that's printed.
- " In sorting out all the "he's" and "him's" and "his's," the word "defence" is confusing, because it implies the victim.
- But "he" doesn't have a quarrel , does he?
- ) "The state of war is a state of enmity and destruction; and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but sedate, settled design upon another man's life puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him , or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel" And this is just a guess!
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
Hard to believe it's all one sentence - but where's the period? 
The first "him" has no antecedent - at least, none tha
The first "him" has no antecedent - at least, none tha
00
Avangiand so
has exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him,
or any one that joins with him in his de
00
Sorry, I assumed we were logging the pronouns differently.
Who is the first man in your current explanation? The first man to appear in the sentence is referred to as "another man." So, does that make him the second man by default?
Do you mind if I refer to them as "the agressor" (red) and "the victim" (blue)?
I would paraphrase your paraphrase thus:
Who is the first man in your current explanation? The first man to appear in the sentence is referred to as "another man." So, does that make him the second man by default?
Do you mind if I refer to them as "the agressor" (red) and "the victim" (blue)?
I would paraphrase your paraphrase thus:
0
Related Questions