Skip to main content
English Language Learners

Return to Answer

replaced http://ell.stackexchange.com/ with https://ell.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

As I stated in the other question you asked about this passagethe other question you asked about this passage, the language you will find in this passage is likely to be archaic and generally unusual for modern English speakers. It appears to be a late-19th century translation of a German original, most likely chosen for copyright reasons.

We would probably not use this kind of inversion today; I certainly wouldn't unless I was trying to sound very authoritative by speaking like someone from a hundred years ago. (And honestly, that probably wouldn't work; my audience would likely just find it pretentious.)

This source (pick up from section 5.3.3) seems to confirm my instinct that this particular inversion would not have been remarkable for the period of the text.

In short: I don't think this is a productive form in modern English. It's probably enough that you recognize it, understand it (it's being used here for emphasis and for reasons of prosody), and realize that it helps date the passage which you are reading (which may in turn help you understand where the author is coming from and what concerns might be important to him).

As I stated in the other question you asked about this passage, the language you will find in this passage is likely to be archaic and generally unusual for modern English speakers. It appears to be a late-19th century translation of a German original, most likely chosen for copyright reasons.

We would probably not use this kind of inversion today; I certainly wouldn't unless I was trying to sound very authoritative by speaking like someone from a hundred years ago. (And honestly, that probably wouldn't work; my audience would likely just find it pretentious.)

This source (pick up from section 5.3.3) seems to confirm my instinct that this particular inversion would not have been remarkable for the period of the text.

In short: I don't think this is a productive form in modern English. It's probably enough that you recognize it, understand it (it's being used here for emphasis and for reasons of prosody), and realize that it helps date the passage which you are reading (which may in turn help you understand where the author is coming from and what concerns might be important to him).

As I stated in the other question you asked about this passage, the language you will find in this passage is likely to be archaic and generally unusual for modern English speakers. It appears to be a late-19th century translation of a German original, most likely chosen for copyright reasons.

We would probably not use this kind of inversion today; I certainly wouldn't unless I was trying to sound very authoritative by speaking like someone from a hundred years ago. (And honestly, that probably wouldn't work; my audience would likely just find it pretentious.)

This source (pick up from section 5.3.3) seems to confirm my instinct that this particular inversion would not have been remarkable for the period of the text.

In short: I don't think this is a productive form in modern English. It's probably enough that you recognize it, understand it (it's being used here for emphasis and for reasons of prosody), and realize that it helps date the passage which you are reading (which may in turn help you understand where the author is coming from and what concerns might be important to him).

Source Link
Tiercelet
Tiercelet
  • 3.4k
  • 13
  • 20

As I stated in the other question you asked about this passage, the language you will find in this passage is likely to be archaic and generally unusual for modern English speakers. It appears to be a late-19th century translation of a German original, most likely chosen for copyright reasons.

We would probably not use this kind of inversion today; I certainly wouldn't unless I was trying to sound very authoritative by speaking like someone from a hundred years ago. (And honestly, that probably wouldn't work; my audience would likely just find it pretentious.)

This source (pick up from section 5.3.3) seems to confirm my instinct that this particular inversion would not have been remarkable for the period of the text.

In short: I don't think this is a productive form in modern English. It's probably enough that you recognize it, understand it (it's being used here for emphasis and for reasons of prosody), and realize that it helps date the passage which you are reading (which may in turn help you understand where the author is coming from and what concerns might be important to him).