Strong as he is (meanings)

[Tarheel]

This variant is slightly different in meaning from the being one. To my ear, John can implies that John has in fact lifted it, while the being variant doesn't. Of course, I might be just hard of hearing. I'm just talking about your particular example. I understand that if someone replies 'I can' to 'Can you help me?', it doesn't imply this person has helped the one who asks before.

Two things. One, that is rather confusing (to me). Two, if somebody says he can do something that does not imply anything. He is simply saying it.

P.S. You are, unfortunately, misusing the word imply.

 

[Alexey86]

Two, if somebody says he can do something that does not imply anything. He is simply saying it.

I can't agree. We never simply say anything. But that's a different topic.

 

[Phaedrus]

But 'Strong as John is, Bill can lift it easily' is definitely wrong because both clauses must talk about one and the same person, right? Without 'being as', the first clause requires the second one to talk about John too.

Hello again, Alexey:

Let me give this another shot. As you can see, I have deleted my previous answer to your follow-up question. After massaging this topic in my mind for the better part of the afternoon, I realized that it was inaccurate of me to represent "As John is strong" as a viable paraphrase of the circumstantial interpretation of "Strong as John is." I also disagree with my affirmative answer to your question about whether both clauses must share the same subject. Consider the following sentences:

(1) Wet as the floor is, people could very easily slip on it.
(2) Wet as the floor is, there is little risk of people slipping on it.

In neither of those sentences does the main clause have the same subject as the "as"-clause. In the "as"-clauses, the subject is "the floor"; in the main clauses, the subjects are "people" and "there," respectively. (The logical subject of [2] is "little risk of people slipping on it," which is also not the same as "the floor.") This shows that the subject need not be the same, on either interpretation of the "as"-clause. Also, note that if you preceded (1) with "Being (as)," the sentence would imply that people are wet!

Here is how I would now paraphrase the two sentences. Each has an "as"-clause that receives a different interpretation from that of the other.

(1') With the floor being as wet as it is, people could very easily slip on it. (circumstantial interpretation)
(2') As wet as the floor is, there is little risk of people slipping on it. (concessive/contrastive interpretation)

The second paraphrase (the paraphrase of the concessive/contrastive type) is borrowed from Quirk et al., who point out that clauses like "Wet as the floor is" or "Strong as John is" can be regarded as the "as . . . as . . ." construction with the first "as" omitted. They do not give a paraphrase of the circumstantial interpretation. Earlier, I conveniently supposed that it could be like an "as"-clause of reason ("As John is strong" / "As the floor is wet"), but now I see that that paraphrase doesn't work at all.

The circumstantial reading of such "as"-clauses, which I believe is properly matched in meaning by the "With [subject] being as [adjective] as [subject] is" construction, "as" indicates the extent or degree to which the subject has the property denoted by the adjective. In the sentence "Strong as John is, he can lift it easily," "as" can be replaced by "to the extent that" -- on the circumstantial reading of the "as"-clause. The sentence says that, because John is strong to the extent that he is, he can lift it easily.

 

[jutfrank]

2a and 3a are not good. The (as) adjective + as + subject + be pattern is used primarily when the following clause is contrastive, as it is in 1a. For that reason, they don't work.

I just want to make it clear that when I said 2a and 3a don't work, I was thinking like a teacher. I don't deny of course that the structure is used with the circumstantial meaning. My aim was to focus Alexey86's attention on the contrastive use, which I believe is far more useful since it is in my judgement far more common. Pedagogically speaking, I don't think the circumstantial use is useful enough to teach. What's more, as I said, I think replacing as with though is much more effective in achieving the contrast.

 

[Phaedrus]

I just want to make it clear that when I said 2a and 3a don't work, I was thinking like a teacher. I don't deny of course that the structure is used with the circumstantial meaning. My aim was to focus Alexey86's attention on the contrastive use, which I believe is far more useful since it is in my judgement far more common. Pedagogically speaking, I don't think the circumstantial use is useful enough to teach. What's more, as I said, I think replacing as with though is much more effective in achieving the contrast.

In some cases, it can be hard to tell whether it is circumstantial or contrastive meaning that is intended. Consider this example:

"Hideous and obscure as it all was, it held Mrs Grose briefly silent; . . . ."

- Henry James, The Turn of the Screw, from Chapter 21

Was Mrs. Grose held briefly silent because of (the extent of) the hideousness and obscurity of it all, or in spite of the hideousness and obscurity of it all? One's interpretation will depend on whether one perceives hideousness and obscurity as things that generally make one silent or as things that generally make one quite vocal.

 

[tzfujimino]

The word "as" is tricky at times, isn't it?
It might not be relevant to this discussion, but there's a sentence the construction of which I have difficulty explaining to my students:

Living as I do in such a remote place, I seldom have visitors.

 

[jutfrank]

Living as I do in such a remote place, I seldom have visitors.

The sense there is causative.

(I read Phaedrus' 'Mrs Grose' example above as causative too. I can't really get the contrastive reading very well.)

 

[Alexey86]

(1) Wet as the floor is, people could very easily slip on it.
(2) Wet as the floor is, there is little risk of people slipping on it.

In neither of those sentences does the main clause have the same subject as the "as"-clause.

(1) and (2) make perfect sense to me because it refers anaphoricaly. Anaphora sets up a semantic bond between the clauses. Maybe this is more important than whether a sentence has one or more subjects. 'Strong as John is, Bill can lift it easily' has no anaphora, that's why it comes across as a random combination of clauses and doesn't make much sense without 'being as'.

 

[Phaedrus]

It might not be relevant to this discussion, but there's a sentence the construction of which I have difficulty explaining to my students:

Living as I do in such a remote place, I seldom have visitors.

That use of as, as I see it, is much different. Semantically, it is the type of as we find in sentences like Daniel LaRusso does karate as Mr. Miyagi did, or Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or in the military command As you were!, which tells troops to return to the posture they were in prior to the entrance of someone of superior rank. As signifies manner in all these examples and may be paraphrased "in the manner that."

Syntactically, however, as I do in your example functions as a parenthetical and should really be set off with commas:

Living, as I do, in such a remote place, I seldom have visitors.
Living in such a remote place, as I do, I seldom have visitors.

Another option is to make Living as I do the main idea, in which case in such a remote place would become the parenthetical element: Living as I do, in such a remote place, I seldom have visitors. In either case, as has nothing to do with the living-phrase's being a clause of reason, which it would be even if as I do were not there: Living in such a remote place, I seldom have visitors. As I do simply comments on the reality of the situation. Contrast:

Living, as I wish I did, in such a remote place, I would seldom have visitors.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

The (as) adjective + as + subject + be pattern confuses me sometimes. Are the pairs below correct and equivalent in meaning?

1a Strong as he is, he can't lift it.
1b He can't lift it despite his strength.

2a Strong as he is, he can lift it.
2b He can lift it due to his strength.

3a Strong as he is, no one can beat him.
3b No one can beat him because of his strength.

4a Strong as he is, he should train every day.
4b No matter how strong he is, he should train every day.

(All examples are mine.)

They all work. That phrasing is used more often in the sense of 1 and 3.

 

[Phaedrus]

(1) Wet as the floor is, people could very easily slip on it.
(2) Wet as the floor is, there is little risk of people slipping on it.

(1) and (2) make perfect sense to me because it refers anaphoricaly. Anaphora sets up a semantic bond between the clauses. Maybe this is more important than whether a sentence has one or more subjects. 'Strong as John is, Bill can lift it easily' has no anaphora, that's why it comes across as a random combination of clauses and doesn't make much sense without 'being as'.

I agree with you, Alexey, that the clauses shouldn't give the impression of being randomly combined.

However, that point holds for any combination of clauses where one clause is syntactically subordinated to another. I really don't think the relationship between an "as"-clause with preposing and the main clause needs to be anaphoric. The following examples illustrate this:

(3) Strong as John is, Steve has the muscles we need. (contrastive/concessive)
(4) Strong as Apollo Creed was, Rocky had a lot of training to do. (circumstantial)

In (3) and (4), no pronouns are used, and each clause makes no reference to the other. Nevertheless, they are related. Sentence (3) means "Even though John is strong, Steve has the muscles we need," and (4) means "With Apollo Creed being as strong as he was, Rocky had a lot of training to do."

Also, remember that the subject of the main clause is not being compared to the subject of the "as"-clause. Just as "Strong as John is, Bill can lift it easily" does not imply that Bill is as strong as John, so also (2) does not imply that people are as wet as the floor is, or (4) that Rocky was as strong as Apollo Creed.

 

[Alexey86]

However, that point holds for any combination of clauses where one clause is syntactically subordinated to another. I really don't think the relationship between an "as"-clause with preposing and the main clause needs to be anaphoric. The following examples illustrate this:

(3) Strong as John is, Steve has the muscles we need. (contrastive/concessive)
(4) Strong as Apollo Creed was, Rocky had a lot of training to do. (circumstantial)

In (3) and (4), no pronouns are used, and each clause makes no reference to the other. Nevertheless, they are related. Sentence (3) means "Even though John is strong, Steve has the muscles we need," and (4) means "With Apollo Creed being as strong as he was, Rocky had a lot of training to do."

You're right, anaphoric reference isn't necessary, but if we use it, the meaning will shift from contrastive to circumstantial and vice versa:

Strong as John is, Steve has the muscles we need. (contrastive/concessive)
Strong as John is, he has the muscle we need. (circumstantial)

Strong as Apollo Creed was, Rocky had a lot of training to do. (circumstantial)
Strong as Apollo Creed was, he had a lot of training to do. (contrastive/concessive)

What do you think?

 

[Phaedrus]

You're right, anaphoric reference isn't necessary, but if we use it, the meaning will shift from contrastive to circumstantial and vice versa: . . . What do you think?

Although I find your attempt to come up with such a generalization commendable, Alexey, I don't think that that particular generalization holds true.

(5) Popular as he is, he will have an easy time winning the election. (circumstantial)
(6) Popular as he is, he will have a difficult time winning the election. (contrastive/concessive)

In both (5) and (6), the two instances of he are co-referent. The only difference is that (5) uses an easy time and (6) a difficult time. If my fellow natives join me in finding (5) and (6) equally acceptable, the anaphoric relationship between the clauses must make no difference in how the as-clauses are interpreted.

 

[Alexey86]

(5) Popular as he is, he will have an easy time winning the election. (circumstantial)
(6) Popular as he is, he will have a difficult time winning the election. (contrastive/concessive)

...the anaphoric relationship between the clauses must make no difference in how the as-clauses are interpreted.

If we change reference we'll change the type of as-clause. And making things more complicated, if we insert a comparison in a contrastive non-anaphoric sentence, it'll become circumstantial (5a -> 5b). But if we insert a comparison in a circumstantial non-anaphoric sentence, it'll become contrasive (6a -> 6b):

(5) Popular as he is, he will have an easy time winning the election. (anaphoric/circumstantial)
(5a) Popular as John is, Bill will have an easy time winning the election. (non-anaphoric//contrastive/concessive)
(5b) Being as popular as John is, Bill will have an easy time winning the election. (non-anaphoric/circumstantial)

(6) Popular as he is, he will have a difficult time winning the election. (anaphoric//contrastive/concessive)
(6a) Popular as John is, Bill will have a difficult time winning the election. (non-anaphoric/circumstantial)
(6b) Being as popular as John is, Bill will have a difficult time winning the election. (non-anaphoric/contrastive)

 

[Phaedrus]

If we change reference we'll change the type of as-clause. And making things more complicated, if we insert a comparison in a contrastive non-anaphoric sentence, it'll become circumstantial (5a -> 5b). But if we insert a comparison in a circumstantial non-anaphoric sentence, it'll become contrasive (6a -> 6b):

(5) Popular as he is, he will have an easy time winning the election. (anaphoric/circumstantial)
(5a) Popular as John is, Bill will have an easy time winning the election. (non-anaphoric//contrastive/concessive)
(5b) Being as popular as John is, Bill will have an easy time winning the election. (non-anaphoric/circumstantial)

(6) Popular as he is, he will have a difficult time winning the election. (anaphoric//contrastive/concessive)
(6a) Popular as John is, Bill will have a difficult time winning the election. (non-anaphoric/circumstantial)
(6b) Being as popular as John is, Bill will have a difficult time winning the election. (non-anaphoric/contrastive)

Remember, the type with "being" -- exemplified by (5b) and (6b) -- is a completely different type of "as"-clause. You can't conclude anything about the type of "as"-clause that we're talking about, which is not a comparative structure, by looking at clauses of that other type.

Regarding your conclusions about (5a) and (6a), suppose John is a celebrity who is on Bill's campaign team. Doesn't the interpretation change from contrastive/concessive to circumstantial in the case of (5a), and from circumstantial to contrastive/concessive in the case of (6a)?

Native speakers aren't performing advanced calculus with anaphora here. We're simply attending to meaning in context.

 

[Alexey86]

Remember, the type with "being" -- exemplified by (5b) and (6b) -- is a completely different type of "as"-clause. You can't conclude anything about the type of "as"-clause that we're talking about, which is not a comparative structure, by looking at clauses of that other type.

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but that's exactly what I was talking about: making a comparative sentence by adding "being", we change the type of as-clause.

Regarding your conclusions about (5a) and (6a), suppose John is a celebrity who is on Bill's campaign team. Doesn't the interpretation change from contrastive/concessive to circumstantial in the case of (5a), and from circumstantial to contrastive/concessive in the case of (6a)?

I agree that only wider context can clarify the type of as-clause. Given that as + adj + as means to the extent that/of, and that extent can be either great or little (which means that popular as he is can mean popular to a little extent as he is) we've come to at least twelve options:

(5) Popular as he is, he will have an easy time winning the election. (anaphoric/circumstantial)
(5a) Popular as he is (= surprisingly, but although he's unpopular), he will have an easy time winning the election. (anaphoric/contrastive)
(5b) Popular as John is, Bill will have an easy time winning the election. (non-anaphoric//contrastive/concessive)
(5c) Popular as John is, Bill will have an easy time winning the election. (non-anaphoric/circumstantial)
(5d) Being as popular as John is, Bill will have an easy time winning the election. (comparative/non-anaphoric/circumstantial)
(5e) Being as popular as John is, Bill will have an easy time winning the election. (comparative/non-anaphoric/contrastive)

(6) Popular as he is, he will have a difficult time winning the election. (anaphoric//contrastive/concessive)
(6a) (ironically) Popular as he is (= given his unpopularity), he will have a difficult time winning the election. (anaphoric/circumstantial)
(6b) Popular as John is, Bill will have a difficult time winning the election. (non-anaphoric/circumstantial)
(6c) Popular as John is, Bill will have a difficult time winning the election. (non-anaphoric/contrastive/concessive)
(6d) Being as popular as John is, Bill will have a difficult time winning the election. (comparative/non-anaphoric/contrastive)
(6e) Being as popular as John is, Bill will have a difficult time winning the election. (comparative/non-anaphoric/circumstantial)

Phew!

 

[Alexey86]

I'd say that 5a and 6a are very unlikely, 5d, 5e. 6e and 6e are very unnatural, 6b ad 6c are unlikely.

Your theoretical linguist may have twelve options, but the majority would never be uttered by most native speakers.

I understand that. Analyzing rare, unlikely, unnatural but still grammatical variants gives me a better understanding of English.

 

[Phaedrus]

Sorry, maybe I'm missing something, but that's exactly what I was talking about: making a comparative sentence by adding "being", we change the type of as-clause.

Why would you want to change the type of "as"-clause to a type that is different from the one you are trying to understand?

If one were trying to understand the nature of beer, would it help to change beer into wine and analyze wine?

I agree that only wider context can clarify the type of as-clause. Given that as + adj + as means to the extent that/of, and that extent can be either great or little (which means that popular as he is can mean popular to a little extent as he is) we've come to at least twelve options: . . . Phew!

I really don't think we needed to be banished to Siberia (the Linguistics sub-forum of Using English) discussing twelve permutations when it had already been shown that anaphora is irrelevant to determining whether the interpretation is contrastive/concessive or circumstantial, that putting being at the front changes the nature of the construction altogether (such that the two types of structure should not be analyzed together), and that any given case can potentially go either way.

There aren't twelve relevant options. There are two: circumstantial and contrastive/concessive. The reason I entered this thread was to demonstrate that the circumstantial interpretation is possible and received in respected grammatical literature. I have accomplished that goal. Showing that sentences which seemingly need the one interpretation or the other can be pushed the other way be imagining a different context was icing on the cake. I do not see the need for twelve permutations.

 

[Alexey86]

Why would you want to change the type of "as"-clause to a type that is different from the one you are trying to understand?

I didn't distinguish them well at the beginning. Changing one into the other has helped me better understand both.

Showing that sentences which seemingly need the one interpretation or the other can be pushed the other way be imagining a different context was icing on the cake.

To me, it was the cake.

The reason I entered this thread was to demonstrate that the circumstantial interpretation is possible and received in respected grammatical literature. I have accomplished that goal.

Then, we can end the discussion. Thank you.