Community Web Version Now Available
Three confusions about this passage about the Constitution. Why the "Rather" ? Keane argues that the political conditions during the early years of the United States were, if anything, (i)__inimical___ to the formation of a nation united by one document: the Constitution. Rather, had it not been for a few men—Keane invokes the triumvirate of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison—to (ii)__campaign___ the Constitution, despite the seemingly implacable opposition of anti-Federalists, the central government would have had to (iii)__cede___ matters of rule to the individual states. 1. What does "if anything" mean? 2. The first sentence says that the political conditions were inimical to the formation of US which was united by the Constitution. The second and third sentences are about how great the Constitution is and how great Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison were. Now the question is: Why the "Rather" ? What is wrong in Keane's claim? 3.What does "matters of rule" mean?
29 ต.ค. 2014 เวลา 9:07
Answers · 5
"If anything" as a phrase is a device "used to suggest tentatively that something may be the case (often the opposite of something previously implied)." (from the Oxford Dictionary) Now, how do you judge whether it has been correctly used in the passage? We shall have to read a few of the preceding paragraphs.
29 ตุลาคม 2014
This time the passage looks strangely inept, as if it was not written by a native speaker. Why is that, Ran? " campaign Constitution..." is clearly grammatically incorrect. "Matters of rule" is so non-native and amateur that it borders on being incorrect, though from the context it can be inferred that the writer wants to say "powers of state (or local) government".
29 ตุลาคม 2014
In this context, "rather" is a conjunction of contrast meaning "quite the opposite."
24 ธันวาคม 2014
Language Skills
Chinese (Mandarin), English, Korean, Spanish
Learning Language
English, Korean, Spanish