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,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
"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 ata 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..."

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.

True, arnie, but the refund might not occur immediately after the sale. In the most literal sense, or course you're right.

quote:

I can't make a lot of sense out of this. I suggest quoting the whole paragraph as written.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
[
That was the entire quote, Goofy.

You didnt finish the sentence! Also, are the parentheses your additions?

I found an article that has the quote

http://chicago.suntimes.com/ne...al-food-stamp-funds/

It does not seem like nonsense to me.

Looks like run-of-the-mill tautology to me.

quote:

You didnt finish the sentence! Also, are the parentheses your additions?

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.