Are there any words I should omit from the list after “as viz”?
He is still out there somewhere, perhaps looking for another body to share… not being truly alive, he cannot be killed. He left Quirrell to die; and he displays just as little mercy to his followers as his enemies. I’ve been told three ways of seeing
as : After ‘as’,’he shows to’is omitted,’to’is omitted nothing
- is omitted.
And I am very confused about how to read the as. Is “as” a conjunction or preposition; is there some omission after or not?
Why no one is actually giving up on diversity?
The original language is, as pointed out in the discussion below and in the answer from Kris.
What do you think of the initial two suggestions as having the same meaning?
The full version would be as followed with he shows. to included twice (repeated words are shown in italics : he
shows just as little mercy to his followers as he shows to his enemies).
If just he shows, with only to being repeated, the meaning remains unchanged. He does just as much
mercy to his followers as his enemies.
Is, however, you omit all of on the’seeing and complaining’ attitude of he showed to his followers, with
no repetition (which was the original version)?
Why is the sentence ambiguous in the answers for Kris’s recent question?
As either a preposition or conjunction, the writing leaves something to be desired. Had she intended “as,” “as” I presume, either option (1) or (2) would be preferable to the bare “as. ” She could also be meaning to say “as if” his enemies. I’m not a billionaire. What do I know?
What we can do to achieve this goal?
Re: If the rule is “no” then it may be necessary to make change.
What is omission in this case? What is the wrong structure?
According to scripture, he shows just as little mercy to his followers as his enemies. ”
With an assumed preposition omission to for parallelism,… shows
just as little mercy to his followers as to his enemies.
However, what if it were:…
he shows just as little mercy to his followers than do his enemies.
Why should I pick a different shoe brand and avoid switching to a different one? One is grammatical, makes sense, but means something altogether different, though grammatical.
In the last five years, nobody has raised an objection about interpretation/ grammatical critique of literary works is off topic. In the past two years, I
have read so many of the articles, that it is annoying to answer your question now.
