Reply
Sat 17 Jan, 2015 11:13 am
Does "never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it" mean "never produced such a villain as the villain who could be capable of entertaining it"?
Context:
The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but, provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own. To prevent, therefore, this paltry misfortune to himself, would a man of humanity be willing to sacrifice the lives of a hundred millions of his brethren, provided he had never seen them? Human nature startles with horror at the thought, and the world, in its greatest depravity and corruption, never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it.
@oristarA,
Quote:never produced such a villain as could be capable of entertaining it.
Yes (also)
It is a shortened phrase:
never produced such a villain as (him who) could be capable of entertaining it.
Thank you all guys.
BTW, I didn't get "The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself" well. Does it mean "The most trivial/minor disaster which would trouble him "?
@McTag,
Quote:It is a shortened phrase: never produced such a villain as (him who) could be capable of entertaining it.
I think I would like to change that: it is an awkward phrase certainly, and I believe the pronoun should be in the nominative case, thus:
It is a shortened phrase: never produced such a villain as (he who) could be capable of entertaining it.
Sorry.
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:
Thank you all guys.
BTW, I didn't get "The most frivolous disaster which could befall himself" well. Does it mean "The most trivial/minor disaster which would trouble him "?
Who would like to answer this?