NB: This bit below was a post by Sdel in 2019. The quote isn’t working for some reason. ETA: post #1692 of the Barisone Trial This Month thread.
[quote] Well, in light of last night’s postings…
[/quote]So, here it is. The post that launched a thousand lectures on syntax. Here we go:
- In the first post, she says, “even if I did not know all of the details and have [sic] heard the recordings [i.e., she DOES know all the details and she HAS heard the recordings or there would exist no state to supply contrast for the ‘even if’ conditional]”
The ‘even if’ here is used before a hypothetical situation in order to show contrast with what is actually the true situation: that she did hear the recordings. So, all the lectures about the ‘even if’ are incorrect.
The ‘even if’ actually proves what most people are saying b/c it is followed by the negative and, thus, the opposite, the positive, is what’s true. ‘even if I did not’ = ‘I did’ in standard English construction. E.g., Even if I hadn’t found this post [the actual situation being: I did]*, I would still have believed that there was more than one post by this exact person on this exact subject. The * bit is the understood contrast to the ‘even if’ hypothetical. I think this is all pretty intuitive to native English speakers and needs no further explanation.
- If any given reader still had doubt, 2 posts down she re-confirms for those thrown off by her, admittedly difficult to follow, English mistakes: "uhhhhhh ya i saw and heard the proof!"
It was/is utterly nonsensical and flies in the face of direct, from-the-horse’s mouth confirmation, to argue that any of the funky syntax and grammatical mistakes of the first post indicate she may not have heard the recordings because one post later she proactively clears up any doubt whatsoever.
Of course, to come to this understanding one would have to, 1. (gasp) understand the use of the contrast conjunction** ‘even if’ as used in the first post, and/or 2. (gasp) simply have read that all-important ‘context’ including the follow-up confirmation that she has in fact seen and heard recordings at least some of which were made illegally.*
*I base this thought on the fact that none of these recordings were admitted as evidence in the criminal trial and the SM posts referencing conversations that happened nowhere near the locker or RG’s pocket must have been made illegally. And, no, I don’t think they weren’t used at trial b/c the prosecution ‘didn’t need them’ or whatever weak comeback was floating around. No prosecutor leaves out legal recordings of a defendant conspiring to commit the crime for which he is charged just b/c, you know, I don’t really need them, I’m good, it’s cool, no worries.
**Contrast conjunctions connect ideas and clauses that contrast. The following words and
phrases are contrast conjunctions: but, although, though, even though, even if, while,
in spite of, while, whilst, whereas.