I do know what is meant by the phrase so, according to the prescriptivists here, I probably shouldn't bring up the question. But I will anyway because I am not 100% a prescriptivist:
In the paper:
"It is (Food and Nutrition Services') strict interpretion that retailers may not charge the tax to SNAP (food stamps, for those of you who are not aware) recipients at any time and that providing an immediate subsequent refund at a customer service does not cure the problem or the violation of law," said James Dimas, secretary of the..."
immediate subsequent just sounds odd to me.
[Edit: from "ata" to "at"]This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,
I can't make a lot of sense out of this. I suggest quoting the whole paragraph as written.
Put "or" between "immediate and "subsequent" and it works; otherwise it's officialese gibberish.
It is nonsense as written. Delete or of the two words:
providing a subsequent refund or possibly
providing an immediate refund .
Refunds can only be subsequent to a purchase; they can't come before it.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
True, arnie, but the refund might not occur immediately after the sale. In the most literal sense, or course you're right.
That was the entire quote, Goofy.
It means a refund immediately after (subsequent) the tax was paid. I got it, but it certainly isn't clear. I suspect I got it because I know the context of the new tax, though that context was not spelled out in this article.
You didnt finish the sentence! Also, are the parentheses your additions?
I found an article that has the quote
It does not seem like nonsense to me.
Looks like run-of-the-mill tautology to me.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." Samuel Johnson.
My current blog.
Photographs to accompany Anyone Can DO It available from www.lulu.com
My photoblog The World Through A lens
Sorry about not explaining it fully: I had cut the quote out of the paper when I read it so it was all I had. The next part continued on another page - and it didn't seem all that necessary to me anyway. My quote was from the Chicago Tribune (not the Sun Times, which you refer to), and the Tribune doesn't allow links. The parentheses were theirs, not mine.
Agreed, Bob. It's understandable but could have been written so much more clearly. It reminded me of a comment my boss made the other day: "I usually always...." I stopped for a moment and said, "usually always?" She had to laugh at her choice of words.