Hello,

Two quick questions about sentences I found puzzling in the novel I've just finished, i.e. Doris Lessing's Shikasta, a very strange, thought-provoking book which conveys a view of the world which is not altogether clear to me.. :)

First(ly):

"For one thing, I believe that most of the youth do not see an old or elderly person from one year's end—or decade's end even—to the next, ...."

Is "not... from one year's end to the next" to be understood as a euphemistic way to say "never"? If so, it doesn't seem to be a very frequent phrase. Google does not seem to list many uses of it.

Second(ly):

"And all this led to one of the most absurd, contemptible sequences in late British colonial history—that Rhodesia could have been in the forefront of the news, day and night for years, the cause of the blacks so belatedly espoused by a thousand kind hearts, commented on ceaselessly by a thousand professionals, but not once during this time was the point made that Britain had been responsible for the situation in the first place."

I find it difficult to understand the causal link between "Rhodesia could have been", which seems to imply it wasn't, and "not once during this time was the point made", which seems to imply it was and therefore we can comment on it.

So my, amidmittedly nebulous, question is twofold:
- Is it possible to use "could have been" to introduce something that did indeed happen? In which case "during this time was the point made" is clear.

- Or is it possible to use "was the point made" in place of the more logical (in my view at least) would have the point been made"

Thanks for any native-speaker insight. :)

Pierre H <pierreh@gmail.com> writes:
>Is "not... from one year's end to the next" to be understood
>as a euphemistic way to say "never"?

I read it as a (slightly incorrect) abbreviation for
"from the end of one year to the end of the next year".

>- Is it possible to use "could have been" to introduce
>something that did indeed happen?

It says that it was possible for this to happen. As in
"How could you see them hungry and not feed them?".

>- Or is it possible to use "was the point made" in place of
>the more logical (in my view at least) would have the point
>been made"

I think "could have been in the forefront" is not hypothetical,
so "would have" is not more logical.

>Thanks for any native-speaker insight. :)

I'm a native speaker of German.

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:01:34 AM UTC-4, Pierre H wrote:

> Two quick questions about sentences I found puzzling in the novel I've just finished, i.e. Doris Lessing's Shikasta, a very strange, thought-provoking book which conveys a view of the world which is not altogether clear to me. :)
>
> First(ly):
>
> "For one thing, I believe that most of the youth do not see an old or elderly person from one year's end—or decade's end even—to the next, ...."
>
> Is "not... from one year's end to the next" to be understood as a euphemistic way to say "never"? If so, it doesn't seem to be a very frequent phrase. Google does not seem to list many uses of it.

It just says 'for a year or even a decade at a time'.

> Second(ly):
>
> "And all this led to one of the most absurd, contemptible sequences in late British colonial history—that Rhodesia could have been in the forefront of the news, day and night for years, the cause of the blacks so belatedly espoused by a thousand kind hearts, commented on ceaselessly by a thousand professionals, but not once during this time was the point made that Britain had been responsible for the situation in the first place."
>
> I find it difficult to understand the causal link between "Rhodesia could have been", which seems to imply it wasn't, and "not once during this time was the point made", which seems to imply it was and therefore we can comment on it.

? A lot of bad things happened in Rhodesia, but the underlying blame,
which belonged to their colonial overlord, was never assigned/mentioned.

> So my, amidmittedly nebulous, question is twofold:
> - Is it possible to use "could have been" to introduce something that did indeed happen? In which case "during this time was the point made" is clear.

Certainly. It's the past tense of "can."

> - Or is it possible to use "was the point made" in place of the more logical (in my view at least) would have the point been made"

That's not English.

> Thanks for any native-speaker insight. :)

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:29:27 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > - Is it possible to use "could have been" to introduce something that did indeed happen? In which case "during this time was the point made" is clear.
> Certainly. It's the past tense of "can."

Sentences like "I despair when I think about what could have been." implies very heavily that it never came to be. Isn't that always the case when you say "could have been"?

> > - Or is it possible to use "was the point made" in place of the more logical (in my view at least) would have the point been made"
> That's not English.
Is it not? Do you prefer "would the point have been made"? I was unsure when writing it on where to put the subject. :)

So you find that paragraph perfectly clear and see no contradiction at all between the first and the second half of it?

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:01:34 AM UTC-6, Pierre H wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Two quick questions about sentences I found puzzling in the novel I've just finished, i.e. Doris Lessing's Shikasta, a very strange, thought-provoking book which conveys a view of the world which is not altogether clear to me. :)
>
> First(ly):
>
> "For one thing, I believe that most of the youth do not see an old or elderly person from one year's end—or decade's end even—to the next, ...."
>
> Is "not... from one year's end to the next" to be understood as a euphemistic way to say "never"? If so, it doesn't seem to be a very frequent phrase. Google does not seem to list many uses of it.

it's not as exaggerated as "never". It just means "once a year", in
negative contexts.

I think it's mostly British.

> Second(ly):
>
> "And all this led to one of the most absurd, contemptible sequences in late British colonial history—that Rhodesia could have been in the forefront of the news, day and night for years, the cause of the blacks so belatedly espoused by a thousand kind hearts, commented on ceaselessly by a thousand professionals, but not once during this time was the point made that Britain had been responsible for the situation in the first place."
>
> I find it difficult to understand the causal link between "Rhodesia could have been", which seems to imply it wasn't, and "not once during this time was the point made", which seems to imply it was and therefore we can comment on it.
>
> So my, amidmittedly nebulous, question is twofold:
> - Is it possible to use "could have been" to introduce something that did indeed happen? In which case "during this time was the point made" is clear.
....

Yes. The speaker is emphasizing that the combination of coverage of
Rhodesia and lack of mention of British responsibility shouldn't have been
possible.

The problem you see is that "could have been" indicates that but doesn't
apply to the second clause. That's pretty common, but not "careful writing".
(I've read that Lessing's science fiction series isn't her best work.) A better
way to say it might have been "...that it was possible for Rhodesia to be
in the forefront of the news without anyone ever making the point that
Britain had been responsible for the situation." (Or "anyone's" instead of
"anyone".)

Incidentally, I suspect that's another exaggeration. I'll bet some people
did make that point in the British media.

--
Jerry Friedman apologizes if his earlier response got through.

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 5:02:08 PM UTC+2, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:01:34 AM UTC-6, Pierre H wrote:

> > Is "not... from one year's end to the next" to be understood as a euphemistic way to say "never"? If so, it doesn't seem to be a very frequent phrase. Google does not seem to list many uses of it.
> it's not as exaggerated as "never". It just means "once a year", in
> negative contexts.
Makes sense.

> I think it's mostly British.
> > Second(ly):
> >
> > "And all this led to one of the most absurd, contemptible sequences in late British colonial history—that Rhodesia could have been in the forefront of the news, day and night for years, the cause of the blacks so belatedly espoused by a thousand kind hearts, commented on ceaselessly by a thousand professionals, but not once during this time was the point made that Britain had been responsible for the situation in the first place."
> >
> > I find it difficult to understand the causal link between "Rhodesia could have been", which seems to imply it wasn't, and "not once during this time was the point made", which seems to imply it was and therefore we can comment on it.
> >
> > So my, amidmittedly nebulous, question is twofold:
> > - Is it possible to use "could have been" to introduce something that did indeed happen? In which case "during this time was the point made" is clear.
> ...
>
> Yes. The speaker is emphasizing that the combination of coverage of
> Rhodesia and lack of mention of British responsibility shouldn't have been
> possible.
>
> The problem you see is that "could have been" indicates that but doesn't
> apply to the second clause. That's pretty common, but not "careful writing".
> (I've read that Lessing's science fiction series isn't her best work.) A better
> way to say it might have been "...that it was possible for Rhodesia to be
> in the forefront of the news without anyone ever making the point that
> Britain had been responsible for the situation." (Or "anyone's" instead of
> "anyone".)
I see. I think this would have appeared more clearly to me is she had used while instead of but to introduce the second clause. Im not sure why.

It’s much clearer now. Thanks.

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:38:47 AM UTC-4, Pierre H wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:29:27 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

You shouldn't delete the very example(s) you're asking about when
you continue to discuss it/them!

> > > - Is it possible to use "could have been" to introduce something that did indeed happen? In which case "during this time was the point made" is clear.
> > Certainly. It's the past tense of "can."
>
> Sentences like "I despair when I think about what could have been." implies very heavily that it never came to be. Isn't that always the case when you say "could have been"?

I guess not!

> > > - Or is it possible to use "was the point made" in place of the more logical (in my view at least) would have the point been made"
> > That's not English.
..
> Is it not? Do you prefer "would the point have been made"? I was unsure when writing it on where to put the subject. :)

That's correct. But your attempt to use a French conditional doesn't
work in English.

> So you find that paragraph perfectly clear and see no contradiction at all between the first and the second half of it?

Not enormously clear; some journalist has clearly not read his Fowler.
Fowler's great work was addressed to politicians and journalists, and
that's where most of his negative examples came from.

But no contradiction. Just castigation.

Pierre H <pierreh@gmail.com> quoted:
>"For one thing, I believe that most of the youth do not see
>an old or elderly person from one year's end - or decade's
>end even - to the next, ...."

Another attempt at paraphrasing (slightly extending the quotation
beyond what you quoted):

|First of all, I think most young people probably don't see
|any old or elderly people at all in the course of a year,
|except in the form of ...

.

>"And all this led to one of the most absurd, contemptible sequences
>in late British colonial history - that Rhodesia could have been
>in the forefront of the news, day and night for years, the cause
>of the blacks so belatedly espoused by a thousand kind hearts,
>commented on ceaselessly by a thousand professionals, but not
>once during this time was the point made that Britain had been
>responsible for the situation in the first place."

Another attempt at paraphrasing:

|And all this led to one of the most absurd and abject occurrences
|in late British colonial history, namely, that Rhodesia had
|been able to dominate the headlines day and night for years,
|that the cause of the blacks had been so belatedly made theirs
|by a thousand sympathetic hearts, incessantly commented upon by
|innumerable appointees, but that not once was it pointed out that
|Great Britain was to be held responsible in the first place.

.

ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>|innumerable appointees, but that not once was it pointed out that
>|Great Britain was to be held responsible in the first place.

Ah, she did not use: "but the elephant in the room was ..."!

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 5:49:05 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:38:47 AM UTC-4, Pierre H wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:29:27 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> You shouldn't delete the very example(s) you're asking about when
> you continue to discuss it/them!
Sorry. It’s an old habit I keep from using mailing lists back in the day.

> > > > - Is it possible to use "could have been" to introduce something that did indeed happen? In which case "during this time was the point made" is clear.
> > > Certainly. It's the past tense of "can."
> >
> > Sentences like "I despair when I think about what could have been." implies very heavily that it never came to be. Isn't that always the case when you say "could have been"?
> I guess not!
> > > > - Or is it possible to use "was the point made" in place of the more logical (in my view at least) would have the point been made"
> > > That's not English.
> .
> > Is it not? Do you prefer "would the point have been made"? I was unsure when writing it on where to put the subject. :)
> That's correct. But your attempt to use a French conditional doesn't
> work in English.

Interesting. I usually read “could have been” first as « aurait pu être » (and it almost always works fine), but it’s true that « a pu être » works equally well and is a much better translation in this context.

But this opens a whole new can of worms: what’s the difference between these two ways of expressing “can be” in a past tense, which are « could be » and « can have been ». I’ll need to have a look at some English grammar textbooks. It’s a question I never seriously asked myself. And to be frank, I’m not even sure “can have been” is proper English, although I’m pretty sure I’ve quite often seen “it can’t have been”. Strangerer and strangerer. :)

> > So you find that paragraph perfectly clear and see no contradiction at all between the first and the second half of it?
> Not enormously clear; some journalist has clearly not read his Fowler.
> Fowler's great work was addressed to politicians and journalists, and
> that's where most of his negative examples came from.

In this case, it was not the work of a journalist but of a Nobel Prize in Literature, which is unfortunate.

Thanks for your input..

On 02-Sep-23 16:02, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> The problem you see is that "could have been" indicates that but doesn't
> apply to the second clause. That's pretty common, but not "careful writing".
> (I've read that Lessing's science fiction series isn't her best work.) A better
> way to say it might have been "...that it was possible for Rhodesia to be
> in the forefront of the news without anyone ever making the point that
> Britain had been responsible for the situation." (Or "anyone's" instead of
> "anyone".)
>
> Incidentally, I suspect that's another exaggeration. I'll bet some people
> did make that point in the British media.

Quite. I haven't examined The Guardian's coverage of that time, but the
idea that they would _not_ have covered the UK's role is... unlikely.

--
Sam Plusnet

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 12:27:52 PM UTC-4, Pierre H wrote:
> On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 5:49:05 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:38:47 AM UTC-4, Pierre H wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:29:27 PM UTC+2, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> > You shouldn't delete the very example(s) you're asking about when
> > you continue to discuss it/them!
>
> Sorry. It’s an old habit I keep from using mailing lists back in the day.
>
> > > > > - Is it possible to use "could have been" to introduce something that did indeed happen? In which case "during this time was the point made" is clear.
> > > > Certainly. It's the past tense of "can."
> > > Sentences like "I despair when I think about what could have been." implies very heavily that it never came to be. Isn't that always the case when you say "could have been"?
> > I guess not!
> > > > > - Or is it possible to use "was the point made" in place of the more logical (in my view at least) would have the point been made"
> > > > That's not English. .
> > > Is it not? Do you prefer "would the point have been made"? I was unsure when writing it on where to put the subject. :)
> > That's correct. But your attempt to use a French conditional doesn't
> > work in English.
>
> Interesting. I usually read “could have been” first as « aurait pu être » (and it almost always works fine), but it’s true that « a pu être » works equally well and is a much better translation in this context.
>
> But this opens a whole new can of worms: what’s the difference between these two ways of expressing “can be” in a past tense, which are « could be » and « can have been ». I’ll need to have a look at some English grammar textbooks. It’s a question I never seriously asked myself. And to be frank, I’m not even sure “can have been” is proper English, although I’m pretty sure I’ve quite often seen “it can’t have been”. Strangerer and strangerer. :)

It rarely if ever comes up. She may have been trying to be "artistic"
-- or could she have been parodying the journalistic style the passage
seems to belong to?

> > > So you find that paragraph perfectly clear and see no contradiction at all between the first and the second half of it?
> > Not enormously clear; some journalist has clearly not read his Fowler.
> > Fowler's great work was addressed to politicians and journalists, and
> > that's where most of his negative examples came from.
>
> In this case, it was not the work of a journalist but of a Nobel Prize in Literature, which is unfortunate.

As Jerry pointed out, not all her writing is up to snuff. And they
probably don't rely terribly much on style points when picking a
laureate.

> Thanks for your input..

Pierre H.:
> Two quick questions about sentences I found puzzling in the novel I've
> just finished, i.e. Doris Lessing's Shikasta...

> "For one thing, I believe that most of the youth do not see an old or
> elderly person from one year's end--or decade's end even--to the next,
> ...."
>
> Is "not... from one year's end to the next" to be understood as a
> euphemistic way to say "never"?

No, it means that a year, or even a decade, can pass without the
event happening. In other words, it's very rare.

> If so, it doesn't seem to be a very frequent phrase.

True, it's rather a fancy way of speaking.

> "And all this led to one of the most absurd, contemptible sequences in
> late British colonial history--that Rhodesia could have been in the
> forefront of the news, day and night for years, the cause of the blacks
> so belatedly espoused by a thousand kind hearts... but not once during
> this time was the point made that Britain had been responsible for
> the situation in the first place."

> I find it difficult to understand the causal link between "Rhodesia
> could have been", which seems to imply it wasn't,

No, she'd saying it's absurd and contemptible, but true that this
happened without the point about responsibility being made.

> So my, amidmittedly nebulous, question is twofold: - Is it possible
> to use "could have been" to introduce something that did indeed
> happen?

Yes.

> In which case "during this time was the point made" is clear.

Actually I don't think that bit agrees in form with the other part.
It needs to be use some sort of "could have" wording as well, but
in the negative it's so unnatural I have no native-speaker instinct
as to how to word it. I'd recast the whole passage to eliminate the
"could have been" and use "was".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Canadian seals deal with creditors"
msb@vex.net | --Globe & Mail, Toronto, July 1, 1997

My text in this article is in the public domain.

In article <9f9e39c7-1fea-4fc4-97ec-
9b5d61cf883en@googlegroups.com>, pierreh@gmail.com says...
>
> Hello,
>
> Two quick questions about sentences I found puzzling in the novel I've just finished, i.e. Doris Lessing's Shikasta, a very strange, thought-provoking book which conveys a view of the world which is not altogether clear to me. :)
>
> First(ly):
>
> "For one thing, I believe that most of the youth do not see an old or elderly person from one year's end?or decade's end even?to the next, ...."
>
> Is "not... from one year's end to the next" to be understood as a euphemistic way to say "never"?

No, it just means rarely, or very occasional.

Implying that "youth" might only encounter their related
older generation at family Christmas, or family
weddings/funerals.

>If so, it doesn't seem to be a very frequent phrase.

It's a common phrase in vernacular English, for contact
with estranged relatives, distant/remote social contacts
etc, infrequent events.

Janet