To have previously shaken
"Mnuchin said these banks had promised him that they had enough money on hand, despite the fact that concerns over liquidity did not appear to have previously shaken the market."
(The Guardian.)
Does the adverb "previously" generate the choice of the perfect infinitive "to have shaken" in the VP "did not appear to have previously shaken" in the sentence above?
---------------
I think that if "previously" was dropped there, then the infinitive "to shake" could be used in that VP. But I wonder whether it would significantly change the meaning of that phrase.
Top answer
With no further context, it appears that "previously" could be omitted, leaving the sentence with approximately the same meaning. Here, "previously" seems to serve in the sentence as a kind of intensifier or emphasizer.
- With no further context, it appears that "previously" could be omitted, leaving the sentence with approximately the same meaning.
- Here, "previously" seems to serve in the sentence as a kind of intensifier or emphasizer.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
With no further context, it appears that "previously" could be omitted, leaving the sentence with approximately the same meaning. Here, "previously" seems to serve in the sentence as a kind of intensifier or emphasizer.
0tkacka15previously
Given the actual situation they're describing, which is currently in the news, 'previously' means 'recently', 'before Mnuchin's announcement'. Mnuchin reassured everyone about a matter that they needn't have been reassured about because no one had ('previously'; just before the announcement was made) even expressed any worries about it.
0
Related Questions