|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
vivianne 01-Jan-06, 09:03 |
 quite to the contrary?I would have said "...was quite the contrary." Please, could someone explain? Thank you. Vivianne |
||
|
I, for one, as a native English speaker can’t explain why the ‘to’ is there but as you know I’m not very knowledgeable about grammar. All I can say is that sometimes words are added that make no real difference to the meaning of a sentence. I suspect this might be the case here, and with or without the ‘to’ both sound ok to me and both have the same meaning. Sorry I can’t be more help but someone might come up with a reason why it should be one and not the other. paddy |
||
|
vivianne 01-Jan-06, 14:22 |
Gracias :) |
||
|
De nada... hasta la vista. p |
||
|
coopershawk 12-Jan-06, 23:03 |
my guess "Now moving to the contrary side of the arguement." Shortened to: "To the contrary." And then embelished to: "Quite to the contrary." The use of the word "quite" adds a high tone to the phrase, and in current usage anyone using the phrase risks being perceived as smug. However it might also be intended as humerous, not really smug, but mockingly serious -- depending on the context and the tone of the speaker's voice. All merely my opinion and speculation. James. |
