how you read this: he snuffed a danger that was old a billion years ago

[GreenCat]

I am very confused and do not even know how to ask the question here...

he snuffed a danger that was old a billion years ago

I can understand:
a danger that was old
a danger that was a billion years ago

But somehow when the two are combined, I'm lost. I get the grammar and probably the rough meaning but I can not see the effect of combining the two and steps for interpretation.

I mean:
a danger that was old a billion years ago

Grammatically is correct but it took me literally 1 minute to understand the meaning because in my brain:
a danger that was old==>"was"denotes is-a-relationship of a danger and old
a danger that was a billion years ago ==>"was" denotes existence of a danger in past

combining the two I either get "an thing that was old in the time it existed a billion years ago" or by breaking down the sentence "thing that is old and existed a billion years ago".

Probably the later is closer to the answer but not quite.

So the question is, my having difficulty understanding the sentence is natural?
Children would have the same difficulty as I do?

Or "old a billion years ago" comes to your mind like a repeat of the same thing for the stronger emphasis like "again and again"?

Sorry that I could not put it short, I just do not understand what is so hard about this myself.

 

[Elizabeth]

I am very confused and do not even know how to ask the question here...

he snuffed a danger that was old a billion years ago

I can understand:
a danger that was old
a danger that was a billion years ago

But somehow when the two are combined, I'm lost. I get the grammar and probably the rough meaning but I can not see the effect of combining the two and steps for interpretation.

I mean:
a danger that was old a billion years ago

Grammatically is correct but it took me literally 1 minute to understand the meaning because in my brain:
a danger that was old==>"was"denotes is-a-relationship of a danger and old
a danger that was a billion years ago ==>"was" denotes existence of a danger in past

combining the two I either get "an thing that was old in the time it existed a billion years ago" or by breaking down the sentence "thing that is old and existed a billion years ago".

Probably the later is closer to the answer but not quite.

I think the the old thing was definitely in the past, so was already old one billion years ago, which leads logically to the former. I don't know what is so difficult either without making the latter into this "Danger that was one billion years old" (Danger being still old in the present).

 

[GreenCat]

I think the the old thing was definitely in the past, so was already old one billion years ago, which leads logically to the former. I don't know what is so difficult either without making the latter into this "Danger that was one billion years old" (Danger being still old in the present).

Thank you for your answer and reading my lengthy post
I'm so happy now since the mystery had been haunting me Day and Night.


The sentence is from Dandelion wine written by Ray Bradbury, 4th chapter:
Douglas, left behind, was lost. Panting, he stopped by the rim of the ravine, at the edge of the softly blowing abyss. Here, ears *****ed like a deer, he snuffed a danger that was old a billion years ago. Here the town, divided, fell away in halves. Here civilisation ceased. Here was only growing earth and a million deaths and rebirths every hour.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't know what is so difficult either without making the latter into this "Danger that was one billion years old" (Danger being still old in the present).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ya, my brain somehow was rearranging the words into "Danger that was one billion years old", rather than taking it literally:

I supposed "something that was old in the past being sensed at presence" was an alien concept for my brain. Or I had trouble telling the length of restrictive clause and had to consider possibility like this:
He snuffed a old danger a billion years ago

Anyway, thank you so much hopefully I will not have the trouble when I face something like this next time

 

[Elizabeth]

Thank you for your answer and reading my lengthy post
I'm so happy now since the mystery had been haunting me Day and Night.


The sentence is from Dandelion wine written by Ray Bradbury, 4th chapter:
Douglas, left behind, was lost. Panting, he stopped by the rim of the ravine, at the edge of the softly blowing abyss. Here, ears *****ed like a deer, he snuffed a danger that was old a billion years ago. Here the town, divided, fell away in halves. Here civilisation ceased. Here was only growing earth and a million deaths and rebirths every hour.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't know what is so difficult either without making the latter into this "Danger that was one billion years old" (Danger being still old in the present).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ya, my brain somehow was rearranging the words into "Danger that was one billion years old", rather than taking it literally:

I supposed "something that was old in the past being sensed at presence" was an alien concept for my brain. Or I had trouble telling the length of restrictive clause and had to consider possibility like this:
He snuffed a old danger a billion years ago

Anyway, thank you so much hopefully I will not have the trouble when I face something like this next time

I wasn't able to glean from the excerpted paragraph whether the strange thing is a horror/science fiction element or purely atmospheric (metaphoric). A very evocative and interesting writer, though, no doubt.


But it doesn't play into the grammar at all. Another two phrasings & relative value of commas you can consider are these :

he snuffed a danger that was old, at a billion years.
he snuffed a danger that was old at a billion years.

And I promise they are different...

 

[GreenCat]

I wasn't able to glean from the excerpted paragraph whether the strange thing is a horror/science fiction element or purely atmospheric (metaphoric). A very evocative and interesting writer, though, no doubt.


But it doesn't play into the grammar at all. Another two phrasings & relative value of commas you can consider are these :

he snuffed a danger that was old, at a billion years.
he snuffed a danger that was old at a billion years.

And I promise they are different...

Yet another conundrums for me...oh when shall I ever sleep in peace again!!
I am very glad to have something to think about acturally, thanks a lot for these treats Elizabeth

>>>>he snuffed a danger that was old, at a billion years.
As there is a comma, I supposed "at a billion years" work on "he snuffed" rather than "a danger that was old".
And "at" probably is a point of time in this case, so:

he snuffed at a billion years after some point, or a billion years may even refer to a Name of location possibly, and as to the the danger, it was old at the time he snuffed it.

>>>>he snuffed a danger that was old at a billion years.
The danger was old at a point of time that is to say after a billion years from some point in the past, which may not mean that the danger is old at present.

Omg..they just sound so woefully complicated. I hope I figured them right.

 

[Elizabeth]

Yet another conundrums for me...oh when shall I ever sleep in peace again!!
I am very glad to have something to think about acturally, thanks a lot for these treats Elizabeth

>>>>he snuffed a danger that was old, at a billion years.
As there is a comma, I supposed "at a billion years" work on "he snuffed" rather than "a danger that was old".
And "at" probably is a point of time in this case, so:

he snuffed at a billion years after some point, or a billion years may even refer to a Name of location possibly, and as to the the danger, it was old at the time he snuffed it.

It still references "old" as "at" acts in the usage of "to the extent of" or "in the amount of." Not governed by any strict standard of accuracy, though...but enough of a pithy marketplace-sounding phrase to possibly impress your friends. lol (Apples at san zen en for two barrels, etc)

>>>>he snuffed a danger that was old at a billion years.
The danger was old at a point of time that is to say after a billion years from some point in the past, which may not mean that the danger is old at present.

Omg..they just sound so woefully complicated. I hope I figured them right.

In fact this implied assumption of "old at" is of accelerated aging, NOT in real time or slowed down. So it's a situation of "already" old at a billion years. How do you say this in Japanese ? 年寄り染みた

 

[GreenCat]

It still references "old" as "at" acts in the usage of "to the extent of" or "in the amount of." Not governed by any strict standard of accuracy, though...but enough of a pithy marketplace-sounding phrase to possibly impress your friends. lol (Apples at san zen en for two barrels, etc)


In fact this implied assumption of "old at" is of accelerated aging, NOT in real time or slowed down. So it's a situation of "already" old at a billion years. How do you say this in Japanese ? 年寄り染みた

Wow, that`s interesting. I will make a note of them..."accelerated aging" and "extent or amount of". Pretty alien concepts, I probably need like a day or two of mental training to start using these.



Thank you Elizabeth for the answer. I can have a fun for a day or two with this interesting idea.



It is very frustrating that there seems to be no texts or anything dealing with issue like this...or maybe just I can't find them?

In fact this implied assumption of "old at" is of accelerated aging, NOT in real time or slowed down. So it's a situation of "already" old at a billion years. How do you say this in Japanese ? 年寄り染みた

Sorry I have not digested the idea completely yet, so cannot quite answer whether the two are equivalent expressions.

 

[akaitsume1]

As the others said, when the two phrases are combined, it no longer simply means that the object is old. It's a way of emphasizing the age of the item. To say it's "old" can be anywhere from a few years old to millions of years old. To say that it's a billion years old is very precise.

But the phrase "the danger was old a billion years ago" means simply that: a billion years ago, the danger could already be considered old. This implies that the danger is older than 1 billion years, and probably older by a lot.

It's not a very clear phrase, nonetheless.

 

[Half-n-Half]

I have to agree with akaitsume1. It seems like Bradbury was trying to say that the danger was old even a billion years ago, he just states it more concisely and poetic by leaving out the "even." I'm guessing since you are reading the likes of Ray Bradbury you are pretty far along on your English studies. How long have you been studying?

 

[GreenCat]

As the others said, when the two phrases are combined, it no longer simply means that the object is old. It's a way of emphasizing the age of the item. To say it's "old" can be anywhere from a few years old to millions of years old. To say that it's a billion years old is very precise.
But the phrase "the danger was old a billion years ago" means simply that: a billion years ago, the danger could already be considered old. This implies that the danger is older than 1 billion years, and probably older by a lot.
It's not a very clear phrase, nonetheless.

Thank you akaitsume1, Elizabeth sort of explained it to me but from reading your description, now I think I understand the effect and reasons behind it better.

" probably older by a lot":
hmm, that is curious, do you reckon that you feel it because of the scale being used is a billion years?
Would you get a different feeling if the sentence is "he snuffed a danger that was old 3 seconds ago but now animate and imminent" ?

I have to agree with akaitsume1. It seems like Bradbury was trying to say that the danger was old even a billion years ago, he just states it more concisely and poetic by leaving out the "even." I'm guessing since you are reading the likes of Ray Bradbury you are pretty far along on your English studies. How long have you been studying?

" How long have you been studying?"
Hmm, I started learning English quite few years ago, when I was a kid, but then I was never seriously into it, English was something I had to use and I was lazy (also I did have time).
So simply how long probably does not mean anything. And as to Ray Bradbury, he is perfectly fine for intermediate or even for primary English learners because well, anything is generally readable as far as that is not too boring:the main difficulty with learning a language is always the boredom not the mysteries.

I guess you are interested in the general level of proficiency in English that Japanese student reach at University or High school level?
It vary quite a lot but because there are annoying number of English teachers in Japanese High school who just cannot speak or write any English at all, the entire level is pulled down rather significantly: Close to my place, there is a collage(or so called University) and English Course graduates there had barely 750 average TOEIC score, I think 7 years old native speaker can get 950 over without any preparation

I do not know the national average but we generally we do not need any English in our daily lives and well I hope that explains everything.

He snuffed a danger that was old at a billion years.
In fact this implied assumption of "old at" is of accelerated aging, NOT in real time or slowed down. So it's a situation of "already" old at a billion years. How do you say this in Japanese ? 窶扼ﾅ?ﾃｱ窶堙ｨﾂ静ｵ窶堙昶?堋ｽ

I have been thinking about this "accelerated aging".

My guess so far is, "accelerated aging" or "impression of something being older than it should normally be" is derived from associated contexts invoked or general usages of a word "old" in combination with a word "at" : I got to here because even in Japanese, there is only one reason to specifically state that he/she is is old or young at a certain age that is to bring an attention to something unusual.

Such as:
窶啀窶啜ﾂ催寂?堙?、窶堋ｷ窶堋ｲ窶堋｢窶堙
at age of 15, that is great
(something is great because it is done at a certain age or younger, otherwise the achievement might not be as praiseworthy?)

窶啀窶啜ﾂ催寂?堙??扼ﾅ?ﾃｱ窶堙ｨ窶堋ｾﾂ。
at 15, he is old
(He is already old at 15 because unless otherwise often there is no point saying specifically "at 15" while there could be some exceptions like: Dogs grow old faster them men do. at 15, he(your male dog) is old ).

80窶堙?ｽﾃ｡窶堋｢窶堙
he is young at 80
(Same as above)

If anyone is kind enough to clarify these, that would be really nice.
Thank you for reading

 

[akaitsume1]

" probably older by a lot":
hmm, that is curious, do you reckon that you feel it because of the scale being used is a billion years?
Would you get a different feeling if the sentence is "he snuffed a danger that was old 3 seconds ago but now animate and imminent" ?

Exactly. If the scale were smaller, it would be an entirely different feeling, but since he referenced a billion years, how much older would it have to be to feel significant? A billion years is already hard to imagine, much less something that was already considered old that long ago.

 

[GreenCat]

Exactly. If the scale were smaller, it would be an entirely different feeling, but since he referenced a billion years, how much older would it have to be to feel significant? A billion years is already hard to imagine, much less something that was already considered old that long ago.

Thank you for confirmation