Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. suprunp's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Ukrainian
      • Home Country:
      • Ukraine
      • Current Location:
      • Ukraine

    • Join Date: Apr 2011
    • Posts: 596
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #1

    It is not necessary to postulate that

    It is not necessary to postulate that the expression [5] presupposes some unspoken preamble such as [5a] but, rather, such as [5b]:

    the mud on your coat [5]
    There's some mud on your coat. [5a]
    You know there's mud on your coat. [5b]
    (A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language; pg 269)

    Would you be so kind to explain to me what the original sentence suggests or slightly paraphrase it?

    Thanks.

  2. SlickVic9000's Avatar
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States

    • Join Date: Oct 2011
    • Posts: 1,019
    • Post Thanks / Like
    #2

    Re: It is not necessary to postulate that

    (Not a Teacher)

    I guess what the author is trying get at is whether or not the phrase 'the mud on your coat' assumes that 'You know there's mud on your coat.'

    Here's my paraphrase:
    The phrase 'the mud on your coat' all ready assumes [5a]. The real question is does it presume [5b]?
    Last edited by SlickVic9000; 27-Mar-2012 at 20:05.

Similar Threads

  1. posit/postulate
    By panicmonger in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-Jan-2011, 02:26
  2. unless we postulate ...
    By GUEST2008 in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 28-Apr-2009, 14:57

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •