0

From an article in Foreign Policy:

The Soviet Union is no more, but the entity created specifically to counter its military might thrives, as has the Pentagon's budget, which increased relentlessly until 2011, topping $700 billion.

I wonder if the use of 'as has' here is grammatical. Shouldn't it be 'as does', that is, 'as the Pentagon's budget does thrive':

The Soviet Union is no more, but the entity created specifically to counter its military might thrives, as does the Pentagon's budget, which increased relentlessly until 2011, topping $700 billion.

After all, the verb phrase used for comparison contains the verb 'thrives', not 'has been thriving'.

1
  • 1
    as has (thrived) It is the present perfect. I don't see any need to change it to the present.
    – JayHook
    Mar 18 '14 at 13:26
1

These are two sentences combined into one:

The Soviet Union is no more, but the entity created specifically to counter its military might thrives.

This is talking about the present. Said "entity created specifically to counter its military might" is still thriving at that point.

The Pentagon's budget increased relentlessly until 2011, topping $700 billion.

This talks about the past. The Pentagon's budget increased before this point. It does not, however, tell us if the Pentagon's budget is still thriving, so we can't use the present form "does" here. We could use "did":

The Soviet Union is no more, but the entity created specifically to counter its military might thrives.

As did the Pentagon's budget, which increased relentlessly until 2011, topping $700 billion.

The "As" here simply refers back to "thrives" and indicates, as above, that "the Pentagon's budget" thrived just like "the entity created …".

The Soviet Union is no more, but the entity created specifically to counter its military might thrives as did the Pentagon's budget, which increased relentlessly until 2011, topping $700 billion.

The choice between "has" and "did" here is mostly at the author's discretion. Personally, I would pick "has" instead of "did" because "did" implies the budget increased completely on its own, but as I said, both would be grammatically correct.

10
  • 1
    @CopperKettle That would be grammatically correct, but its meaning is different. It would imply that the Pentagon's budget still thrives - that is not given in the original quote. The original quote only refers to the past development of the Pentagon's budget, not the present.
    – user98085
    Mar 18 '14 at 13:34
  • 1
    @CopperKettle: no, it relates to thrives. See my answer below. Also, I'm not quite comfortable with your reconstruction of the sentence. "I have walked my dog every day until I broke my leg" is incorrect, for example; it should be "I walked my dog every day until..." The reason is that "have walked" means that the walking is true from some point in the past up to now. "I have walked my dog every day since he was a puppy" is correct, for example. I put a fuller explanation below that might help clarify the tense usage in your original sentence a bit.
    – BobRodes
    Mar 18 '14 at 13:49
  • 1
    LOL Yes, that is frustrating sometimes.
    – BobRodes
    Mar 18 '14 at 13:59
  • 1
    @FEichinger My opinion is that "as has the Pentagon's budget" is saying precisely that the budget still thrives. The "which" clause is attempting to back up the assertion. One could respond to this sentence by saying that the fact that the budget was increasing as of 2011 doesn't fully back up the assertion that it is thriving now. I submit that "the Pentagon's budget has thrived" makes that assertion unequivocally.
    – BobRodes
    Mar 18 '14 at 13:59
  • 1
    @BobRodes That might be the intention of the sentence, but it's certainly not what it actually says. That might be a mistake slipped in editing, but as it is written it does not convey that meaning.
    – user98085
    Mar 18 '14 at 14:02
2

Another look that could be helpful is this:

The entity created specifically to counter its military might thrives.
The Pentagon's budget has also thrived.
It increased relentlessly until 2011, topping $700 billion.

The third sentence is intended to back up the second (it doesn't fully, because it doesn't say that the budget thrived after 2011). As you can see, there is a different tense in each sentence, and each sentence makes sense by itself. Each sentence also expands on the previous one, so it makes sense to combine them. The "as has" and the "which" allow the writer to combine all the ideas into one sentence.

You must log in to answer this question.

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