0

The phrase mentioned sounds odd to me there. What does it mean? Thank you very much in advance.

. . . I can't think who can have so trusted him, but I am very sure it was a stranger in San Francisco." "Someone for the owners, I suppose," said I. "Surely not!" exclaimed the judge. "Owners in London can have nothing to say to opium smuggled between Hong Kong and San Francisco. I should rather fancy they would be the last to hear of it . . .

(The Wrecker by R. L. Stevenson and L. Osbourne, chapter x)

Improve this question
5
  • Presumably the reference is to ship-owners - they cannot be expected to know anything about this smuggling in the Pacific.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Sep 26, 2023 at 18:13
  • It's a dated quirky "literary" form that never had much currency. Avoid it. We might still today say Owners in London have nothing to say to opium smugglers... (without can), but we wouldn't use that format where the syntactic "object" is in fact the potential subject of discussion.
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Sep 26, 2023 at 18:57
  • @Kate Bunting - Thank you very much indeed.
    – philphil
    Commented Sep 26, 2023 at 19:29
  • 1
    Owners in London have nothing to say about opium smuggled etc.
    – Lambie
    Commented Sep 26, 2023 at 19:29
  • @FumbleFinger and Lambie - Thank you very much indeed.
    – philphil
    Commented Sep 26, 2023 at 19:53

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1

To expand on Kate's correct answer, the author (or judge) is letting us know what they mean by clarifying: "I should rather fancy they would be the last to hear of it." So since they are geographically very separated (by one ocean and an entire continent) from the matter, surely, they couldn't possible have anything to say on the matter. This can be taken somewhat literally, but also it is meant to imply that there is no reason to suspect that owners in London are involved in the smuggling.

Improve this answer
3
  • Thank you very much indeed - Is it true, as FF says, this wording is dated or obsolete?
    – philphil
    Commented Sep 26, 2023 at 20:01
  • As Lambie says, the modern preposition is about
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Sep 26, 2023 at 20:13
  • @philphil I'd say it's dated but not completely obsolete. It sounds a little clunky. It would be understood, but almost never used, by English speakers. This is contrary to the phrase in your other question (ell.stackexchange.com/questions/342004/…) that would neither be used nor understood.
    – BigMistake
    Commented Sep 26, 2023 at 21:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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