 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / September 2010Baldacci: it was having evaporated
Hello: "it was having evaporated"? seems strange to me. "it had evaporated" seems better, perhaps. --- [He had been poisoned via an ointment on his car handle] The fingers didn’t feel slick anymore. He didn’t know if it was due to the soap and water or to whatever it was having evaporated. Then the truth hit him like a .50 caliber round. Or absorbed. As in absorbed into my body. David Baldacci, Stone Cold --- -- Thanks. Marius Hancu > Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Then the truth hit him like a .50 caliber round. Or absorbed. As in > absorbed into my body. <whatever it was> (or is) is a fixed noun phrase, meaning that the speaker doesn't know exactly what it was. - He didn’t know if it was due to the soap and water, or to whatever-it-was having evaporated. It's easer to parse with the comma.  SignatureDavid > > "it was having evaporated"? > > seems strange to me. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > It's easer to parse with the comma. Ah, and with another comma:-) - He didn’t know if it was due to the soap and water, or to whatever- it-was, having evaporated. Thanks. Marius Hancu >>> "it was having evaporated"? >>> seems strange to me. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > - He didn’t know if it was due to the soap and water, or to whatever- > it-was, having evaporated. It's ambiguous but I think it's more likely to mean that he didn't know if the lack of slickness was due to <the soap and water> or to <the stuff having evaporated>. Not <the soap and water having evaporated>. SignatureDavid >>>> "it was having evaporated"? >>>> seems strange to me. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >if the lack of slickness was due to <the soap and water> or to <the >stuff having evaporated>. Not <the soap and water having evaporated>. If he had washed his hand with soap and water after getting something on it from the door handle then your analysis is logical. If he had not washed his hand but thought that what was on the car handle might have been soap and water or something else then we are still in the territory of evaporating or drying out soap-and-water. It would be the water that would evaporate leaving soap which might be sticky or slick. As what had happened was unusual and puzzling the possible explanations that might go through his mind would not need to be strictly feasible. He was groping for an explantion. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> "it was having evaporated"? >>>>> seems strange to me. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > If he had washed his hand with soap and water after getting something on > it from the door handle then your analysis is logical. That was my thinking. SignatureDavid "David": >>>> - He didn't know if it was due to the soap and water, or to >>>> whatever-it-was having evaporated. >>>> >>>> It's easer to parse with the comma. Er, not *that* way. Marius Hancu: >>> Ah, and with another comma:-) >>> >>> - He didn't know if it was due to the soap and water, or to whatever- >>> it-was, having evaporated. Right. "David": >> It's ambiguous but I think it's more likely to mean that he didn't know >> if the lack of slickness was due to <the soap and water> or to <the >> stuff having evaporated>. Wrong. Peter Duncanson: > If he had washed his hand with soap and water after getting something on > it from the door handle then your analysis is logical. If he had not > washed his hand but thought that what was on the car handle might have > been soap and water or something else then we are still in the territory > of evaporating or drying out soap-and-water... Right. And obviously he hadn't washed his hand, because if he had, he wouldn't've found it remarkable that it was no longer slick. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Mark is probably right about something, msb@vex.net | but I forget what" -- Rayan Zachariassen My text in this article is in the public domain. > "David": >>>>> - He didn't know if it was due to the soap and water, or to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Right. And obviously he hadn't washed his hand, because if he had, he > wouldn't've found it remarkable that it was no longer slick. I disagree, because of the second "to" in the original quote. SignatureDavid >>> "it was having evaporated"? >>> seems strange to me. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > - He didn’t know if it was due to the soap and water, or to whatever- > it-was, having evaporated. Some people might prefer an apostrophe to show that a genitive construction is needed here: He didn’t know if it was due to the-soap-and-water-or-to-whatever-it-was's having evaporated. SignatureJames > "it was having evaporated"? > seems strange to me. > > "it had evaporated" > seems better, perhaps. "Due to", here correctly used, takes a noun as a direct object. The change in sensation might have been "due to (a substance's) having evaporated." As in my example, I prefer a possessive form preceding the verbal noun, but many don't bother with it, especially when the possessor is described in a long phrase. > --- > [He had been poisoned via an ointment on his car handle] [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > David Baldacci, Stone Cold > --- > The fingers didn’t feel slick anymore. He didn’t know if it was due to > the soap and water or to whatever it was having evaporated. I've never heard of Baldacci, but I think you managed to find a writer with even less skill than Ms Meyers. This is just dreadful. SignatureBEWITCHED DOES NOT PROMOTE SATANISM Bart chalkboard Ep. 2F17 > > The fingers didn’t feel slick anymore. He didn’t know if it was due to > > the soap and water or to whatever it was having evaporated. > > I've never heard of Baldacci, but I think you managed to find a writer > with even less skill than Ms Meyers. This is just dreadful. "Stone Cold" (November 2007): Reached number one on The New York Times Bestseller List I need to sample some of these bestsellers. I might be missing something:-)) Marius Hancu > > The fingers didn’t feel slick anymore. He didn’t know if it was due to > > the soap and water or to whatever it was having evaporated. > > I've never heard of Baldacci, but I think you managed to find a writer > with even less skill than Ms Meyers. This is just dreadful. I've never heard of him until this summer, even though I had seen this movie several times on TV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Power_(film) Marius Hancu Marius Hancu: > I've I'd. > never heard of him until this summer, even though I had seen this > movie several times on TV: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_Power_(film) That one is an interesting example of the changes the filmmakers make when adapting a novel -- they omitted the novel's main character. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "We are informed many things, msb@vex.net | some of them correct." --Greg Goss >Hello: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >David Baldacci, Stone Cold >--- Like what the others said, but it's not ambiguous to me. The fingers didn't feel slick anymore this was due to a: soap and water or b: whatever it was (the slick stuff) b1: having evaporated Or b2: having absorbed into my body The only writing problem I see is that "having absorbed" should be "having been absorbed", as I use the word. SignatureJohn Marius Hancu asked about: >> The fingers didn't feel slick anymore. He didn't know if it was due to >> the soap and water or to whatever it was having evaporated. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >David Baldacci, Stone Cold > >--- John O'Flaherty explains: > Like what the others said, but it's not ambiguous to me. > The fingers didn't feel slick anymore [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Or > b2: having absorbed into my body No, not quite. It should be: The fingers didn't feel slick anymore this was due to the slick stuff (a: soap and water or b: whatever it was) having 1: evaporated or 2: having been absorbed into my body > The only writing problem I see is that "having absorbed" should be > "having been absorbed", as I use the word. But "having absorbed" only comes up in John's paraphrase. "Or absorbed" is an abbreviated expression and is to be read as "Or not having evaporated, but having been absorbed." SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | Thus, "plain english" is the same as msb@vex.net | "near-field spin". --Carl Ginnow My text in this article is in the public domain. >Marius Hancu asked about: >>> The fingers didn't feel slick anymore. He didn't know if it was due to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > or > 2: having been absorbed into my body I still disagree, Mark. I don't have the book, but my impression is that he used soap and water to clean the contaminant from his hands. Requoting a scrap, "due to the soap and water or _to_ whatever it was having evaporated". If your interpretation were right, it would have to be "due to the soap and water or whatever it was having evaporated". The additional "to" means that the disappearance of the slickness is being attributed to either soap and water, or to evaporation. Then "absorbed" is the third alternative. >> The only writing problem I see is that "having absorbed" should be >> "having been absorbed", as I use the word. > >But "having absorbed" only comes up in John's paraphrase. >"Or absorbed" is an abbreviated expression and is to be read as >"Or not having evaporated, but having been absorbed." What the writer said, in effect, was "having evaporated" ... "or absorbed". You can certainly expand it as you have, if you want to do his work for him! SignatureJohn > I don't have the book, but my impression is > that he used soap and water to clean the contaminant from his hands. Longer quote: ---- [He was already paralyzed by the poison] He tried to rub the fingers together but his mind’s command apparently was not reaching the digits. Yet earlier there had been something on his fingers. It had felt slick, like Vaseline. You could rub and rub and never get it to feel dry. He had washed his hands when he got home, and that seemed to do the trick. The fingers didn’t feel slick anymore. He didn’t know if it was due to the soap and water or to whatever it was having evaporated. Then the truth hit him like a .50 caliber round. Or absorbed. As in absorbed into my body. Where had his fingers become wet? He strained his mind to think. Not this morning. Not at the store, or the deli. After that? Perhaps. Getting in the car. The car handle! ---- Marius Hancu >> I don't have the book, but my impression is >> that he used soap and water to clean the contaminant from his hands. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > dry. He had washed his hands when he got home, and that seemed to do > the trick. I rest my case. > The fingers didn’t feel slick anymore. He didn’t know if it > was due to the soap and water or to whatever it was having evaporated. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this morning. Not at the store, or the deli. After that? Perhaps. > Getting in the car. The car handle! SignatureDavid John O'Flaherty (and "David" in a different branch of the thread): > Requoting a scrap, > "due to the soap and water or _to_ whatever it was having evaporated". > If your interpretation were right, it would have to be > "due to the soap and water or whatever it was having evaporated". You're right; I retract the previous interpretation. SignatureMark Brader | "...where did they get the sunlight in such a hurry? I know msb@vex.net | it can be delivered in about eight minutes, but there must Toronto | be lots of paperwork involved." -- Michael Wares |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.