Quote:
Originally Posted by drewdown  Does the above term make sense? I'm wanting to use in in the context of saying that it would be wrong to suggest something was happening for a reason, because that reason only occured after the event happened.
If that's a bad explanation, basically I want to say that control of food aid was not a causal factor in the Sudanese civil war because food aid only began arriving after the war started.
So basically... If that's incorrect or doesnt make sense ( I cant help but feel Ive made it up...) could someone correct me or suggest an alternative?
Many thanks,
D. |
You might well have made it up - and if you have -congratulations.
It makes perfect sense to me and really encapsulates the idea that a misapprehension has come about despite the time making it impossible.
Buggles(not a teacher)