SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: ManyMoose who wrote (230251)12/4/2007 12:53:07 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (4) of 793839
 
As I've said before, you can dissect the sentence into two parts.

Not in English you can't. The dependent clause sets the stage for the independent clause. If they were intended to be separate, they would have been written with an intervening period, not a comma.

Only people with an agenda can interpret otherwise.

The default is to read a sentence as written, particularly in a well crafted document such as the Constitution. It takes an agenda to separate two clauses into two sentences and claim independence rather than leave them as written.

[is = being]

You have to force a verb substitution to make two sentences. Force, stretch, and contrive.

That said, I don't claim to know what the conjoined sentence means as written. What I do know is that to claim independence for the two clauses is more agenda-convenient than apt.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News