James: still less was it the first of his ...
Marius Hancu
This inversion, "was it,"
is it caused by "still," as sometimes it's caused by "only?"
--
[Stether visits the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris.]
It wasn't the first time Strether had sat alone in the great dim church
—still less was it the first of his giving himself up, so far as
conditions permitted, to its beneficent action on his nerves.
Henry James, The Ambassadors, p. 181
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/432/432-h/432-h.htm
---
--
Thanks.
Marius Hancu
James Hogg
> Hello:
>
> This inversion, "was it,"
> is it caused by "still," as sometimes it's caused by "only?"
> --
> [Stether visits the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris.]
>
> It wasn't the first time Strether had sat alone in the great dim church
> conditions permitted, to its beneficent action on his nerves.
Yes, and as after "rarely", "scarcely", "no sooner", "not until",
"never", "on no condition" etc.
--
James
Marius Hancu
> > This inversion, "was it,"
> > is it caused by "still," as sometimes it's caused by "only?"
> > --
> > [Stether visits the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris.]
>
> > It wasn't the first time Strether had sat alone in the great dim church
> > —still less was it the first of his giving himself up, so far as
> > conditions permitted, to its beneficent action on his nerves.
>
> Yes, and as after "rarely", "scarcely", "no sooner", "not until",
> "never", "on no condition" etc.
Thanks.
Marius Hancu
Nick
> Marius Hancu wrote:
>> Hello:
>>
>> This inversion, "was it,"
>> is it caused by "still," as sometimes it's caused by "only?"
>> --
>> [Stether visits the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris.]
>>
>> It wasn't the first time Strether had sat alone in the great dim church
>> —still less was it the first of his giving himself up, so far as
>> conditions permitted, to its beneficent action on his nerves.
>
> Yes, and as after "rarely", "scarcely", "no sooner", "not until",
> "never", "on no condition" etc.
The "still less was it" doesn't cause me any problems. But there's
something very rum about the rest of that sentence. Presumably there's
an elided "time" after "first", but I don't see how you can do that -
take both out yes (although it's not particularly reader friendly) or
neither, but one?
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Donna Richoux
> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes:
>
> > Marius Hancu wrote:
> >> Hello:
> >>
> >> This inversion, "was it,"
> >> is it caused by "still," as sometimes it's caused by "only?"
> >> --
> >> [Stether visits the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris.]
> >>
> >> It wasn't the first time Strether had sat alone in the great dim church
> >> -- still less was it the first of his giving himself up, so far as
> >> conditions permitted, to its beneficent action on his nerves.
> >
> > Yes, and as after "rarely", "scarcely", "no sooner", "not until",
> > "never", "on no condition" etc.
>
> The "still less was it" doesn't cause me any problems. But there's
> something very rum about the rest of that sentence. Presumably there's
> an elided "time" after "first", but I don't see how you can do that -
> take both out yes (although it's not particularly reader friendly) or
> neither, but one?
Well, Henry James equals very rum, that's that.
I heard an odd construction on the BBC news last night -- "It's been
twenty [or whatever] years since television cameras were allowed in the
House of Commons."
Now, I would normally interpret that as, twenty years ago it was
allowed, and it has *not* been allowed since, until maybe just now.
"It's been thirty years since I saw my cousin Ellen. I wonder what she
looks like now."
But the story made quite clear it was the opposite -- Cameras have been
allowed for twenty years. I can understand that, but the ambiguity
strikes me as, well, striking.
A "first" would resolve it. "It's been twenty years since cameras were
first allowed..." Or "began to be".
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
CDB
> Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
>> James Hogg <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> This inversion, "was it,"
>>>> is it caused by "still," as sometimes it's caused by "only?"
>>>> --
>>>> [Stether visits the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris.]
>>>>
>>>> It wasn't the first time Strether had sat alone in the great dim
>>>> church -- still less was it the first of his giving himself up,
>>>> so far as conditions permitted, to its beneficent action on his
>>>> nerves.
>>>
>>> Yes, and as after "rarely", "scarcely", "no sooner", "not until",
>>> "never", "on no condition" etc.
>>
can have it with "even less" or "far less" just as readily.
>
>> The "still less was it" doesn't cause me any problems. But there's
>> something very rum about the rest of that sentence. Presumably
>> there's an elided "time" after "first", but I don't see how you
>> can do that - take both out yes (although it's not particularly
>> reader friendly) or neither, but one?
>
> Well, Henry James equals very rum, that's that.
>
> I heard an odd construction on the BBC news last night -- "It's been
> twenty [or whatever] years since television cameras were allowed in
> the House of Commons."
>
> Now, I would normally interpret that as, twenty years ago it was
> allowed, and it has *not* been allowed since, until maybe just now.
> "It's been thirty years since I saw my cousin Ellen. I wonder what
> she looks like now."
>
> But the story made quite clear it was the opposite -- Cameras have
> been allowed for twenty years. I can understand that, but the
> ambiguity strikes me as, well, striking.
>
> A "first" would resolve it. "It's been twenty years since cameras
> were first allowed..." Or "began to be".
>