-2

On some forum somebody asked:

How powerful was the Soviet Union?

Then, there was this long answer:

Does it matter? Actually I partly want to comment on what that other guy said. Let me correct him. It was the US that continually gave out false information on the Soviet Union to scare people in the US and thus make them OK with greater and greater military expenditures so one "gap" after another could be closed. ... One lie after another that was sooner or later exposed for what it was but then a new one took its place with the previous one (or ones) somehow becoming irrelevant and pretty much forgotten. ... To the question at hand. The Soviet Union was powerful enough that, if they had wanted, they could have crushed western europe with little effort. NATO would have been brushed aside like the laughable joke they were and still are. And I saw first hand simulations in the Pentagon that showed just this very thing. I said "if they wanted".....

By "to the question at hand", did the author want to mean "back to the question at hand" but was careless and accidentally dropped "back"?

Improve this question
3
  • What other meaning would that fragment have other than "returning to the question at hand" or "Now, to the question at hand"? I don't understand the source of your confusion.
    – ColleenV
    Nov 12, 2014 at 18:49
  • @ColleenV Would "for the question at hand" be better?
    – meatie
    Nov 12, 2014 at 21:09
  • "To the question at hand" could be short for either "Back to the question at hand", or "Turning to the question at hand".
    – Jasper
    Feb 4, 2016 at 17:54

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

Either way, it is still a dependent clause and not a complete sentence.

To differenciate:

1.) Let us go back to the question at hand. Subject is us. Verb is go. This is a complete independent sentence.

2.) To the question at hand, the Soviets were once powerful. Subject is Soviets. Verb is were. Here it is used as a dependent clause.

'Back to the question at hand' is not really necessary but incase the speaker has gotten long winded he may wish to emphasize on a non specific time ago by using 'back'.

/BACK to the question at hand/ and may even want to recall the question in case of being off-track too long.

Back to the question at hand, "how powerful was the Soviet Union?"

Improve this answer
5
  • Would "for the question at hand" be better?
    – meatie
    Nov 12, 2014 at 21:10
  • It is still a dependent clause and needs to be complete sentence. The original usage in the example you gave is technically wrong to begin with for the same reason. The expression itself can be used with 'to', 'for' or 'back to' and is generally a matter of preference and may relieve some ambiguity depending on how long the speaker has rambled beyond answering the question at hand.
    – David
    Nov 12, 2014 at 21:24
  • So, it is an informal speech phrase?
    – meatie
    Nov 12, 2014 at 22:18
  • It could be used in a formal or casual setting.
    – David
    Nov 12, 2014 at 22:22
  • So, "to the question at hand" is not inferior to "back to the question at hand" or "on to the question at hand"?
    – meatie
    Nov 12, 2014 at 23:07

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .