4

See your Emperor! He fears these arrows and spears no more than would an anvil!

My guess is that this means: "an anvil does not fear arrows and spears, because anvil is so strong that beating arrows and spears on an anvil does not hurt the anvil in any way, your emperor also does not fear this arrows and spears, because he is so strong too (in the same way)".

Is that right? Please explain the structure of the sentence a bit.

Improve this question
4
  • 2
    @KinzleB I put back the comparison and inversion tags (which you deleted) because the OP's example is a comparative construction that uses subject-auxiliary inversion. -- If you disagree with my grammatical evaluation of the OP's example, please explain where you think I went wrong.
    – F.E.
    Commented Nov 2, 2014 at 0:52
  • I think that's not relevant to what OP was asking. @F.E.
    – Kinzle B
    Commented Nov 2, 2014 at 1:36
  • @KinzleB How is what not relevant?
    – F.E.
    Commented Nov 2, 2014 at 3:38
  • 1
    I thought OP wasn't asking about inversion or comparison, but the particular usage of 'would'. Seems I'm wrong about it. @F.E.
    – Kinzle B
    Commented Nov 2, 2014 at 5:20

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

You have the basic sense right.

Grammatically, that would is the past-tense form of will used not to designate remoteness in time but remoteness in probability. An anvil of course cannot feel fear; but even if we imagine that an anvil could feel fear, we have to acknowledge that it would not fear spears and arrows, for the reasons you have given.

Improve this answer
1
  • Well said. It's also an old fashioned sounding construction. If it were written today it would more likely read, "See your Emperor! He fears these arrows and spears no more than an anvil would!" (fear the spears and anvils.)
    – Jason Patterson
    Commented Nov 1, 2014 at 23:26

You must log in to answer this question.

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