It is hard for us to realize nowadays how difficult it was for the pioneers. Except for one or two places such as Zermatt and Chamonix, which had rapidly become popular, Alpine villages tended to be impoverished settlements cut off from civilization by the high moutains. Such inns as there were were generally dirty and flea-ridden; the food u[/u] simply local cheese accompanied by bread often twelve months old, all u[/u] washed down with coarse wine.
Dear all,
Could you please tell me what the meaning of ‘as there were’?
Should I think the writer missed the words in the brackets? Are there any grammer rules about omissions of these kinds I can comply with?
Such inns as there were = Such inns as the present ones (here).
No, he/she didn’t. “Such inns…were generally dirty and flea-ridden; the food (was) simply local cheese; all (was) washed down with coarse wine.” The succeeding two "be"s can be omitted legitimately.
The statement about food which follows the semi-colon is an extension to the information which comes before. This structure is not seen often, but it is correct. It is a continuation of the description, where the omissions are assumed.
Sorry I can’t provide an exact rule for usage. Here’s another example:
“The stables were warm and cosy; the enclosure well-lit and draught-free.”
Thank you, Beeesneees. I’ve got it. I have one more question, if you don’t mind.
Such inns as there were were generally dirty and flea-ridden; the food (was) simply local cheese accompanied by bread often twelve months old[color=red][size=150],[/size] all (was) washed down with coarse wine.
Should the writer use a semicolon where the red comma is? If so, it can agree with the previous semicolon. That looks more grammatical. Am I right?
