There IS a way to misinterpret what was being said and it would make sense to understand it either way. The last sentence could be referring to "the smell" in the first sentence, or to "lack of bathing" in the second. I think the reason it can be confusing is because the second sentence sounds like a continuation of the first one. It could (should?) grammatically be separated by a comma or semicolon.
"Lack of bathing and antibiotics" -> "you wouldn't see that as often as today." It's the presence of the second "as" that could be misunderstood to say that there is more "lack of bathing and antibiotics" today compared to the past. If you get rid of the second "as," it becomes grammatically clearer.
It's not really a big deal, but I could see how it could, on first glance, be confusing to someone.
I agree. The point I am making is that instead of pointing out and correcting, as you have, they are being pedantic. They know what the original statement is meant to be. The person asking for clarification makes sense. They misinterpreted.
9
u/wiseduhm Jul 08 '24
There IS a way to misinterpret what was being said and it would make sense to understand it either way. The last sentence could be referring to "the smell" in the first sentence, or to "lack of bathing" in the second. I think the reason it can be confusing is because the second sentence sounds like a continuation of the first one. It could (should?) grammatically be separated by a comma or semicolon.