Whant is the mean of "be standing"

Question

Dear English Master:there is a sentence from Obama's speech. But i didn't get the mean of "be standing".thanks!The original phrase is as below:I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as president of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi.

Avangi · Accepted Answer

The comma after "today" destroys the meaning.

"I wouldn't be here today if it were not for my mother and father."

"I wouldn't be standing here today if it were not for my mother and father."

"I wouldn't be President right now (today) if Gandhi had not done the things he did."

"Had it not been for Gandhi" is an interesting form.
We might wonder about the antecedent of "it" and the choice of tense.

Yet it's idiomatic to say, "I wouldn't be here had it not been for my parents."

I suppose this is the "anticipatory it," although I don't know what it anticipates.

Sam1947 · Answer

It means that he might not literally be standing in the place that he was, giving that speech as president of the U.S. if it weren't for Ghandi.

In the same way you would use that tense to say, "I might not be singing in Carnegie Hall today if it weren't for my fifth grade music teacher who encouraged me."

or, "I might not be flying this plane if it weren't for the instructor who had faith in me when I had difficulty passing the early tests for the flying program.

I think you probably know this, but just in case you don't, to stand before someone or a group of people means to be erect at the front of the assembly.

So, Obama was saying he was aware that he might not be the one erect at the podium as President of the United States, if Ghandi had not done the things he did to move along the cause of human rights and civil rights for all people.

Sam1947 · Answer

"I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as president of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi."

This is actually very beautiful language. The comma is correct, as it sets off the dependent phrase. If you can read the sentence without the part set off in commas, then the commas are correct. e.g.,

I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today had it not been for Ghandi. (complete and correct sentence)

I am not sure why you think the commas destroy the meaning.

President Obama is one of the most articulate speechmakers that have occupied the White House in recent decades.

"Had it not been for" is very common and correct usage.

Avangi · Answer

sam1947President Obama is one of the most articulate speechmakers that have occupied the White House in recent decades.

No argument.

Avangi · Answer

sam1947"I am mindful that I might not be standing before you today, as president of the United States, had it not been for Gandhi."

Okay, I'll give you that one, but I think it's better without the comma. It makes "as President of the United States" sound like an afterthought.
I might not be here as President, but perhaps as his chauffeur. (Here come the PC Police!)

My point is, with the comma, it means "I wouldn't have been here at all without Gandhi."

But his point is, "I wouldn't have been President without Gandhi."

I'm willing to concede that "I wouldn't have been here at all" works in the sense that his REASON for being here is that he's President of the US.

But I'm not willing to concede that the comma makes it a better sentence.

Best regards, - A.

Sam1947 · Answer

That's funny, because I think it emphasizes that part. But, the upshot is, the commas are correct. President Obama is a highly educated and intelligent person whom I have never heard "put a foot wrong" as far as grammer is concerned. The natural pauses that come with the commas, in speaking, would emphasize that part of the statement.

be standing here, pause, as president of the United States, pause.....

see what I mean?

Avangi · Answer

sam1947be standing here, pause, as president of the United States, pause..
see what I mean?

When we pause we're usually setting off something non-essential.

- A.

Sam1947 · Answer

Hmmm. That is very interesting. I don't know what culture you are from, but, in the U.S. when in public speaking (or for that matter in writing) one sets something off by pausing before, and pausing after, it gives emphasis to that part.

For example,

His home, a large rambling Gothic structure, looked like something out of a Stephen King novel.

His large, rambling Gothic-styled home looked like something out of a Stephen King novel.

If reading that in a story aloud, or even reading it to oneself, the first puts much more emphasis on the appearance of the house than the second one.

It would be totally incorrect without the commas in the first one, which is why I didn't use it for the 2nd.

The reason it is easy to tell that the commas are correct in sentence 1 is the same reason they are correct in Obama's speech. That is, that you can say the sentence, and it will be a complete one and make sense, by omiting the part set off by commas. e.g., His home looked like something out of a Stephen King novel.

Avangi · Answer

I think where we're missing each other is that you're looking at "emphasis" as a restatement, or stressing, or repeating of something.

I'm thinking more in terms of making a given phrase essential, or defining, in the way that a comma, or pause, makes a relative clause non-essential, while the absence of the pause/comma makes the clause essential, or defining to the meaning of the sentence.

Sam1947 · Answer

OK, now I'm seeing why you are thinking this. You are focused on the term "non essential phrase or clause," which is set off in commas. Although that is the grammar classification of it, the use of it in writing or, especially in speech, can emphasize that language because it causes one to pause before and after saying or reading those words, and pausing gives emphasis to them.

You are confusing the grammar construction with the effect it has when read or spoken. Try it yourself, pausing both before and after "as President of the United States," and you'll see what I mean. It makes that part very noticable and prominent. So, while it might be a non essential phrase, it is a very emphatic way of bringing attention to his position.

Thanks for helping me understand where you were coming from. It seemed so obvious to me that the construction of the sentence emphasized that he was president that I wasn't able to understand why it didn't seem equally obvious to you. But, now I do!

Whant is the mean of "be standing"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions