Why were?
Hello,
Would you explain the structure of this sentence:
One wouldn’t need a proper name "were" one, as long as one remained, the sole being.
I have problem with "were" in this line. Why were? and, "were" refers to what?
And, Is it the whole meaning of this line: "One wouldn’t need a proper name because one, as long as one remained, is the sole being."?
Thanks
Top answer
anonymous One wouldn’t need a proper name "were" one, as long as one remained, the sole being. It is a reduced (literary) form of the longer version. It is an example of inversion.
- anonymous One wouldn’t need a proper name "were" one, as long as one remained, the sole being.
- It is a reduced (literary) form of the longer version.
- It is an example of inversion.
- One wouldn’t need a proper name if it were the case that one, as long as one remained, were the sole being.
- html
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
anonymousOne wouldn’t need a proper name "were" one, as long as one remained, the sole being.
It is a reduced (literary) form of the longer version. It is an example of inversion.
One wouldn’t need a proper name if it were the case that one, as long as one remained, were
0
Related Questions