What does “He has insurance, but Christ†mean?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
He has insurance, but Christ.
Could you please tell me what the meaning of phrase above is?
I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct.
The full text is here:
James scrubs the frying pan in the big kitchen sink and ponders how to
rejig things so that he can feed his guests adequately without any
electricity. The refrigerator isn’t working. At least he can cook with
the gas oven. But he’s without a dishwasher. Breakfast was easy
enough—eggs and pastries, and nobody much felt like eating anyway,
from what he could see, after that poor girl fell down the stairs.
He’s lost his appetite too. He feels terrible for that man’s loss. And
the whole thing makes him sick with anxiety. It’s the kind of
situation every hotel owner loses sleep over—an accident in his hotel,
a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing
to happen. He knows he’s not to blame. His carpets aren’t loose—he’d
gone up to the landing and checked over that carpet himself the first
chance he got. It was fine. She must have stumbled for no reason.
There’s absolutely no way anyone can blame him or his hotel.
An Un Wanted Guest by Shari Lapena
meaning
asked Aug 23 at 9:07
Peace
1,85821536
add a comment |Â
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
He has insurance, but Christ.
Could you please tell me what the meaning of phrase above is?
I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct.
The full text is here:
James scrubs the frying pan in the big kitchen sink and ponders how to
rejig things so that he can feed his guests adequately without any
electricity. The refrigerator isn’t working. At least he can cook with
the gas oven. But he’s without a dishwasher. Breakfast was easy
enough—eggs and pastries, and nobody much felt like eating anyway,
from what he could see, after that poor girl fell down the stairs.
He’s lost his appetite too. He feels terrible for that man’s loss. And
the whole thing makes him sick with anxiety. It’s the kind of
situation every hotel owner loses sleep over—an accident in his hotel,
a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing
to happen. He knows he’s not to blame. His carpets aren’t loose—he’d
gone up to the landing and checked over that carpet himself the first
chance he got. It was fine. She must have stumbled for no reason.
There’s absolutely no way anyone can blame him or his hotel.
An Un Wanted Guest by Shari Lapena
meaning
asked Aug 23 at 9:07
Peace
1,85821536
But it must still have been unpleasant?
– mathreadler
Aug 24 at 13:39
5
I think they have used a period instead of a comma. I think it should be "He has insurance but, Christ, what a thing to happen". In this way the meaning is still correct without the exclamation.
– Neil
Aug 24 at 16:23
add a comment |Â
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
up vote
27
down vote
favorite
He has insurance, but Christ.
Could you please tell me what the meaning of phrase above is?
I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct.
The full text is here:
James scrubs the frying pan in the big kitchen sink and ponders how to
rejig things so that he can feed his guests adequately without any
electricity. The refrigerator isn’t working. At least he can cook with
the gas oven. But he’s without a dishwasher. Breakfast was easy
enough—eggs and pastries, and nobody much felt like eating anyway,
from what he could see, after that poor girl fell down the stairs.
He’s lost his appetite too. He feels terrible for that man’s loss. And
the whole thing makes him sick with anxiety. It’s the kind of
situation every hotel owner loses sleep over—an accident in his hotel,
a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing
to happen. He knows he’s not to blame. His carpets aren’t loose—he’d
gone up to the landing and checked over that carpet himself the first
chance he got. It was fine. She must have stumbled for no reason.
There’s absolutely no way anyone can blame him or his hotel.
An Un Wanted Guest by Shari Lapena
meaning
asked Aug 23 at 9:07
Peace
1,85821536
He has insurance, but Christ.
Could you please tell me what the meaning of phrase above is?
I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct.
The full text is here:
James scrubs the frying pan in the big kitchen sink and ponders how to
rejig things so that he can feed his guests adequately without any
electricity. The refrigerator isn’t working. At least he can cook with
the gas oven. But he’s without a dishwasher. Breakfast was easy
enough—eggs and pastries, and nobody much felt like eating anyway,
from what he could see, after that poor girl fell down the stairs.
He’s lost his appetite too. He feels terrible for that man’s loss. And
the whole thing makes him sick with anxiety. It’s the kind of
situation every hotel owner loses sleep over—an accident in his hotel,
a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing
to happen. He knows he’s not to blame. His carpets aren’t loose—he’d
gone up to the landing and checked over that carpet himself the first
chance he got. It was fine. She must have stumbled for no reason.
There’s absolutely no way anyone can blame him or his hotel.
An Un Wanted Guest by Shari Lapena
meaning
asked Aug 23 at 9:07
Peace
1,85821536
edited Aug 24 at 13:32
asked Aug 23 at 9:07
Peace
1,85821536
asked Aug 23 at 9:07
Peace
1,85821536
asked Aug 23 at 9:07
Peace
1,85821536
1,85821536
But it must still have been unpleasant?
– mathreadler
Aug 24 at 13:39
5
I think they have used a period instead of a comma. I think it should be "He has insurance but, Christ, what a thing to happen". In this way the meaning is still correct without the exclamation.
– Neil
Aug 24 at 16:23
add a comment |Â
But it must still have been unpleasant?
– mathreadler
Aug 24 at 13:39
5
I think they have used a period instead of a comma. I think it should be "He has insurance but, Christ, what a thing to happen". In this way the meaning is still correct without the exclamation.
– Neil
Aug 24 at 16:23
But it must still have been unpleasant?
– mathreadler
Aug 24 at 13:39
But it must still have been unpleasant?
– mathreadler
Aug 24 at 13:39
5
5
I think they have used a period instead of a comma. I think it should be "He has insurance but, Christ, what a thing to happen". In this way the meaning is still correct without the exclamation.
– Neil
Aug 24 at 16:23
I think they have used a period instead of a comma. I think it should be "He has insurance but, Christ, what a thing to happen". In this way the meaning is still correct without the exclamation.
– Neil
Aug 24 at 16:23
add a comment |Â
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
up vote
118
down vote
accepted
"Christ" in this context serves as an exclamation rather than a literal reference to Jesus Christ. It can convey a fairly wide range of emotions, but the next sentence ("What a thing to happen.") implies that in this case it's some sort of sadness about the hotel owner's situation.
So the sentence means that even though the owner has insurance (which presumably shields him from legal implications of the accident), it's still a terrible thing to happen. I think you want to interpret it as something like "The owner has no insurance, but he has Christ on his side", which is definitely not what the author meant given the context.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Maciej Stachowski
4,47611320
8
This is the correct interpretation, It's an exclamation and while he's shielded by his insurance from any real consequences it's still shocking to him.
– Ruadhan2300
Aug 23 at 11:47
17
@Peace To add to this (correct!) answer, the names of Christian religious symbols are often used for swearing. "God", "Christ", "Jesus", and so on. In Catholic countries, it's not unusual to swear using saint's names (particularly Mary). Even non-religious people will do this, because it's cultural and not related to actual belief. In the past when religious belief was stronger, it was considered worse to swear using religious names, and bodily-function profanities ("shit", "fuck", etc.) were considered milder, to the point of being normalised. These days of course it is reversed.
– Graham
Aug 23 at 12:09
3
@Graham I disagree that it would be reversed. Where I live (Netherlands), "fuck" is considered milder and "shit" is equal to "oops!", so I guess it is culture/native language related.
– Mixxiphoid
Aug 23 at 12:14
6
I think there is also confusion due to the odd punctuation of that sentence and the one after it. If I were writing that, it probably would have been something more like "He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen."
– Kevin
Aug 23 at 12:20
27
I too read that as an interjection. I would punctuate something along the lines of "...a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but — Christ — what a thing to happen"... using an em dash to to signal that we are halfway over to listening to a stream of consciousness.
– MichaelK
Aug 23 at 13:00
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
As James scrubs the frying pan, he ponders (thinks). This is a signal that what follows are his thoughts. He is thinking about the refrigerator not working, but at least he can cook, etc. He considers the death of a guest in his hotel. He has insurance but... At that point, the text reports directly what would be a religious oath if spoken aloud: "Christ. What a thing to happen." One might often see exclamation marks instead of periods in such reported utterances, thought or spoken.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Michael Harvey
7,6181720
10
Amen! I was a bit surprised the original didn’t end with an exclamation point.
– J.R.♦
Aug 23 at 9:44
1
exclamation marks are considered a bit vulgar by some writers, the reader should know it is an exclamation without the need for extra punctuation. bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23781044
– WendyG
Aug 24 at 14:01
2
This is a work of fiction, not a grade school essay.
– Michael Harvey
Aug 24 at 22:12
1
Nit-pick: “I am happy I am fine†is a legitimate variation of “I am happy that I am fine.†We frequently omit “that†in such sentences. (Though I personally prefer to put it in for clarity.)
– WGroleau
Aug 24 at 23:11
1
@WillCrawford Writing a question without a question mark is a stylistic decision--not merely of writing style but of speech style, it represents a different intonation. Perhaps it is a rhetorical question. Perhaps it is merely spoken deadpan? This is exactly what the author of the above is doing, and why insisting on an exclamation point is wrong. The grammar is no different, but the style and tone of the speech utterance (or in this case thought) is.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:20
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
I think it would be clearer if the sentences had been punctuated differently.
Rather than:
He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
I’d write (to express the same meaning):
He has insurance. But Christ! What a thing to happen.
The second variant makes it clearer that “Christ†is an exclamation, not a continuation of the previous sentence, and that “But†is a conjunction that introduces the following sentence. You could even use em dashes to mark the exclamation as a parenthetical remark:
He has insurance. But — Christ! — what a thing to happen.
I’m not entirely sure why the original text’s author chose to do this differently but it seems to be a somewhat common stylistic choice to combine sentence fragments in this way using commas.
answered Aug 23 at 13:28
Konrad Rudolph
34117
4
To me, "but Christ!" reads as an expression of extreme frustration, whereas "but Christ." reads as a casual expression distress. A reason the author didn't use an ! might be because they didn't want to give the text that much intensity.
– Vaelus
Aug 23 at 16:21
6
Or even "But Christ, what a thing to happen." or "But, Christ, what a thing to happen."
– David Richerby
Aug 23 at 16:23
1
@Vaelus Fair enough. But it really shouldn’t be part of the preceding sentence. If anything, it’s part of the following sentence, as in David’s comment or my third version.
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 23 at 16:26
I'm interpreting it more as "He has insurance, but [Christ. What a thing to happen]." The brackets denote what is being covered by the but. In other words, "Christ. What a thing to happen." is two sentences, and the author wanted both to be covered by the but.
– Duncan X Simpson
Aug 23 at 16:59
2
i think the existing punctuation avoids the exclamation mark or emdash here because the point is the narrator is trying to reassure himself, stay calm, and deny that there's a problem, so dramatic emphasis is not called for.
– Nathan Hughes
Aug 24 at 13:20
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
As the other answers have explained, "Christ" here is being used as an oath, in the sense of
An irreverent or careless use of a sacred name (Merriam-Webster)
A profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotions (Oxford Dictionaries)
The meaning would be the same if you replaced the word "Christ" with something like "holy crap" or "oh my god" or even "wow".
I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct.
If you want the meaning of that to be "He has no insurance except for his faith in Christ", that wouldn't have the comma.
answered Aug 23 at 16:32
David Richerby
6,4731739
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
As others have pointed out, it’s not about the insurance. What I would like to point out is that the period after Christ is probably what caused your confusion and is what is wrong with the sentence.
. He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
The period indicates a complete sentence an end to the thought, but really it is just the opening to the real thought - that this was a terrible thing to happen. Punctuation is used as a way of grouping and separating things, ideas, thoughts, who said what, action, etc. The punctuation in these two sentences is incorrect, because they shouldn’t be two sentences they should be one.
The writer is trying to say that a terrible thing happened, while simultaneously saying that it could have been worse and that it wasn’t his fault and really shouldn’t impact him. The incorrect punctuation both separated those things, and by incorrectly grouping parts of them the whole is confusing-the “Christ†could be taken as a complaint about the deductible or trouble that insurance doesn’t cover. I don’t think that is what is meant, but it could be.
answered Aug 25 at 13:27
jmoreno
37115
1
"Christ. What a thing to happen." and "Christ! What a thing to happen!" are grammatically the same thing, but very different in tone. The former is not an error.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:21
@Wlerin: punctuation can change tone (as in your example), but it can also change meaning. In the OPs example the punctuation makes the meaning ambiguous.
– jmoreno
Aug 26 at 12:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The author uses the phrase as an aside explaining the situation the owner now faces:
an accident, presumably fatal, involving a guest.
Since he has insurance, he may not be liable financially for the accident, and should not be anxious. “But Christ†is a commonly used emphasizer, sometimes seen as “But Christ Almightyâ€Â...
I know it is good to check my blood sugar in the morning but Christ
Almighty if the lances don’t hurt like no tomorrow!
Or “But Jesus H. Christâ€Â...
Johnson was a role-model student, but Jesus H. Christ take a bath once
in a while.
edited Aug 25 at 13:46
helen
1,8761219
answered Aug 25 at 7:49
Dave Jackson
1
Welcome to ELL, and thanks for trying to contribute on this question. The site is a knowledge base rather than a forum. The objective is for each answer to provide something substantively different from what has already been contributed. Your answer would be good if it was earlier, however it kind of duplicates the previous answers at this point. But do continue to contribute on other questions that interest you.
– fixer1234
Aug 25 at 8:43
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I agree with former answers with the slight modification to assert that people often interject the word Christ as an appeal to the divine. In the cited text, the hotel owner is protected from financial or legal responsibility by having insurance and checking the carpet to make sure it's tight, but requests divine protection should there be a spiritual liability assessed against him. He feels it necessary to request this as he feels guilt despite knowing on rational grounds there was nothing he could do to prevent the accident (or it's severity)
I also agree with other answers that this should have been punctuated as one sentence:
He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen!
answered Aug 25 at 20:18
Sean Hare
111
add a comment |Â
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
118
down vote
accepted
"Christ" in this context serves as an exclamation rather than a literal reference to Jesus Christ. It can convey a fairly wide range of emotions, but the next sentence ("What a thing to happen.") implies that in this case it's some sort of sadness about the hotel owner's situation.
So the sentence means that even though the owner has insurance (which presumably shields him from legal implications of the accident), it's still a terrible thing to happen. I think you want to interpret it as something like "The owner has no insurance, but he has Christ on his side", which is definitely not what the author meant given the context.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Maciej Stachowski
4,47611320
8
This is the correct interpretation, It's an exclamation and while he's shielded by his insurance from any real consequences it's still shocking to him.
– Ruadhan2300
Aug 23 at 11:47
17
@Peace To add to this (correct!) answer, the names of Christian religious symbols are often used for swearing. "God", "Christ", "Jesus", and so on. In Catholic countries, it's not unusual to swear using saint's names (particularly Mary). Even non-religious people will do this, because it's cultural and not related to actual belief. In the past when religious belief was stronger, it was considered worse to swear using religious names, and bodily-function profanities ("shit", "fuck", etc.) were considered milder, to the point of being normalised. These days of course it is reversed.
– Graham
Aug 23 at 12:09
3
@Graham I disagree that it would be reversed. Where I live (Netherlands), "fuck" is considered milder and "shit" is equal to "oops!", so I guess it is culture/native language related.
– Mixxiphoid
Aug 23 at 12:14
6
I think there is also confusion due to the odd punctuation of that sentence and the one after it. If I were writing that, it probably would have been something more like "He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen."
– Kevin
Aug 23 at 12:20
27
I too read that as an interjection. I would punctuate something along the lines of "...a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but — Christ — what a thing to happen"... using an em dash to to signal that we are halfway over to listening to a stream of consciousness.
– MichaelK
Aug 23 at 13:00
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
118
down vote
accepted
"Christ" in this context serves as an exclamation rather than a literal reference to Jesus Christ. It can convey a fairly wide range of emotions, but the next sentence ("What a thing to happen.") implies that in this case it's some sort of sadness about the hotel owner's situation.
So the sentence means that even though the owner has insurance (which presumably shields him from legal implications of the accident), it's still a terrible thing to happen. I think you want to interpret it as something like "The owner has no insurance, but he has Christ on his side", which is definitely not what the author meant given the context.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Maciej Stachowski
4,47611320
8
This is the correct interpretation, It's an exclamation and while he's shielded by his insurance from any real consequences it's still shocking to him.
– Ruadhan2300
Aug 23 at 11:47
17
@Peace To add to this (correct!) answer, the names of Christian religious symbols are often used for swearing. "God", "Christ", "Jesus", and so on. In Catholic countries, it's not unusual to swear using saint's names (particularly Mary). Even non-religious people will do this, because it's cultural and not related to actual belief. In the past when religious belief was stronger, it was considered worse to swear using religious names, and bodily-function profanities ("shit", "fuck", etc.) were considered milder, to the point of being normalised. These days of course it is reversed.
– Graham
Aug 23 at 12:09
3
@Graham I disagree that it would be reversed. Where I live (Netherlands), "fuck" is considered milder and "shit" is equal to "oops!", so I guess it is culture/native language related.
– Mixxiphoid
Aug 23 at 12:14
6
I think there is also confusion due to the odd punctuation of that sentence and the one after it. If I were writing that, it probably would have been something more like "He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen."
– Kevin
Aug 23 at 12:20
27
I too read that as an interjection. I would punctuate something along the lines of "...a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but — Christ — what a thing to happen"... using an em dash to to signal that we are halfway over to listening to a stream of consciousness.
– MichaelK
Aug 23 at 13:00
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
118
down vote
accepted
up vote
118
down vote
accepted
"Christ" in this context serves as an exclamation rather than a literal reference to Jesus Christ. It can convey a fairly wide range of emotions, but the next sentence ("What a thing to happen.") implies that in this case it's some sort of sadness about the hotel owner's situation.
So the sentence means that even though the owner has insurance (which presumably shields him from legal implications of the accident), it's still a terrible thing to happen. I think you want to interpret it as something like "The owner has no insurance, but he has Christ on his side", which is definitely not what the author meant given the context.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Maciej Stachowski
4,47611320
"Christ" in this context serves as an exclamation rather than a literal reference to Jesus Christ. It can convey a fairly wide range of emotions, but the next sentence ("What a thing to happen.") implies that in this case it's some sort of sadness about the hotel owner's situation.
So the sentence means that even though the owner has insurance (which presumably shields him from legal implications of the accident), it's still a terrible thing to happen. I think you want to interpret it as something like "The owner has no insurance, but he has Christ on his side", which is definitely not what the author meant given the context.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Maciej Stachowski
4,47611320
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Maciej Stachowski
4,47611320
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Maciej Stachowski
4,47611320
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Maciej Stachowski
4,47611320
4,47611320
8
This is the correct interpretation, It's an exclamation and while he's shielded by his insurance from any real consequences it's still shocking to him.
– Ruadhan2300
Aug 23 at 11:47
17
@Peace To add to this (correct!) answer, the names of Christian religious symbols are often used for swearing. "God", "Christ", "Jesus", and so on. In Catholic countries, it's not unusual to swear using saint's names (particularly Mary). Even non-religious people will do this, because it's cultural and not related to actual belief. In the past when religious belief was stronger, it was considered worse to swear using religious names, and bodily-function profanities ("shit", "fuck", etc.) were considered milder, to the point of being normalised. These days of course it is reversed.
– Graham
Aug 23 at 12:09
3
@Graham I disagree that it would be reversed. Where I live (Netherlands), "fuck" is considered milder and "shit" is equal to "oops!", so I guess it is culture/native language related.
– Mixxiphoid
Aug 23 at 12:14
6
I think there is also confusion due to the odd punctuation of that sentence and the one after it. If I were writing that, it probably would have been something more like "He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen."
– Kevin
Aug 23 at 12:20
27
I too read that as an interjection. I would punctuate something along the lines of "...a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but — Christ — what a thing to happen"... using an em dash to to signal that we are halfway over to listening to a stream of consciousness.
– MichaelK
Aug 23 at 13:00
 |Â
show 4 more comments
8
This is the correct interpretation, It's an exclamation and while he's shielded by his insurance from any real consequences it's still shocking to him.
– Ruadhan2300
Aug 23 at 11:47
17
@Peace To add to this (correct!) answer, the names of Christian religious symbols are often used for swearing. "God", "Christ", "Jesus", and so on. In Catholic countries, it's not unusual to swear using saint's names (particularly Mary). Even non-religious people will do this, because it's cultural and not related to actual belief. In the past when religious belief was stronger, it was considered worse to swear using religious names, and bodily-function profanities ("shit", "fuck", etc.) were considered milder, to the point of being normalised. These days of course it is reversed.
– Graham
Aug 23 at 12:09
3
@Graham I disagree that it would be reversed. Where I live (Netherlands), "fuck" is considered milder and "shit" is equal to "oops!", so I guess it is culture/native language related.
– Mixxiphoid
Aug 23 at 12:14
6
I think there is also confusion due to the odd punctuation of that sentence and the one after it. If I were writing that, it probably would have been something more like "He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen."
– Kevin
Aug 23 at 12:20
27
I too read that as an interjection. I would punctuate something along the lines of "...a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but — Christ — what a thing to happen"... using an em dash to to signal that we are halfway over to listening to a stream of consciousness.
– MichaelK
Aug 23 at 13:00
8
8
This is the correct interpretation, It's an exclamation and while he's shielded by his insurance from any real consequences it's still shocking to him.
– Ruadhan2300
Aug 23 at 11:47
This is the correct interpretation, It's an exclamation and while he's shielded by his insurance from any real consequences it's still shocking to him.
– Ruadhan2300
Aug 23 at 11:47
17
17
@Peace To add to this (correct!) answer, the names of Christian religious symbols are often used for swearing. "God", "Christ", "Jesus", and so on. In Catholic countries, it's not unusual to swear using saint's names (particularly Mary). Even non-religious people will do this, because it's cultural and not related to actual belief. In the past when religious belief was stronger, it was considered worse to swear using religious names, and bodily-function profanities ("shit", "fuck", etc.) were considered milder, to the point of being normalised. These days of course it is reversed.
– Graham
Aug 23 at 12:09
@Peace To add to this (correct!) answer, the names of Christian religious symbols are often used for swearing. "God", "Christ", "Jesus", and so on. In Catholic countries, it's not unusual to swear using saint's names (particularly Mary). Even non-religious people will do this, because it's cultural and not related to actual belief. In the past when religious belief was stronger, it was considered worse to swear using religious names, and bodily-function profanities ("shit", "fuck", etc.) were considered milder, to the point of being normalised. These days of course it is reversed.
– Graham
Aug 23 at 12:09
3
3
@Graham I disagree that it would be reversed. Where I live (Netherlands), "fuck" is considered milder and "shit" is equal to "oops!", so I guess it is culture/native language related.
– Mixxiphoid
Aug 23 at 12:14
@Graham I disagree that it would be reversed. Where I live (Netherlands), "fuck" is considered milder and "shit" is equal to "oops!", so I guess it is culture/native language related.
– Mixxiphoid
Aug 23 at 12:14
6
6
I think there is also confusion due to the odd punctuation of that sentence and the one after it. If I were writing that, it probably would have been something more like "He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen."
– Kevin
Aug 23 at 12:20
I think there is also confusion due to the odd punctuation of that sentence and the one after it. If I were writing that, it probably would have been something more like "He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen."
– Kevin
Aug 23 at 12:20
27
27
I too read that as an interjection. I would punctuate something along the lines of "...a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but — Christ — what a thing to happen"... using an em dash to to signal that we are halfway over to listening to a stream of consciousness.
– MichaelK
Aug 23 at 13:00
I too read that as an interjection. I would punctuate something along the lines of "...a fatal accident at that. He has insurance, but — Christ — what a thing to happen"... using an em dash to to signal that we are halfway over to listening to a stream of consciousness.
– MichaelK
Aug 23 at 13:00
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
As James scrubs the frying pan, he ponders (thinks). This is a signal that what follows are his thoughts. He is thinking about the refrigerator not working, but at least he can cook, etc. He considers the death of a guest in his hotel. He has insurance but... At that point, the text reports directly what would be a religious oath if spoken aloud: "Christ. What a thing to happen." One might often see exclamation marks instead of periods in such reported utterances, thought or spoken.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Michael Harvey
7,6181720
10
Amen! I was a bit surprised the original didn’t end with an exclamation point.
– J.R.♦
Aug 23 at 9:44
1
exclamation marks are considered a bit vulgar by some writers, the reader should know it is an exclamation without the need for extra punctuation. bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23781044
– WendyG
Aug 24 at 14:01
2
This is a work of fiction, not a grade school essay.
– Michael Harvey
Aug 24 at 22:12
1
Nit-pick: “I am happy I am fine†is a legitimate variation of “I am happy that I am fine.†We frequently omit “that†in such sentences. (Though I personally prefer to put it in for clarity.)
– WGroleau
Aug 24 at 23:11
1
@WillCrawford Writing a question without a question mark is a stylistic decision--not merely of writing style but of speech style, it represents a different intonation. Perhaps it is a rhetorical question. Perhaps it is merely spoken deadpan? This is exactly what the author of the above is doing, and why insisting on an exclamation point is wrong. The grammar is no different, but the style and tone of the speech utterance (or in this case thought) is.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:20
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
As James scrubs the frying pan, he ponders (thinks). This is a signal that what follows are his thoughts. He is thinking about the refrigerator not working, but at least he can cook, etc. He considers the death of a guest in his hotel. He has insurance but... At that point, the text reports directly what would be a religious oath if spoken aloud: "Christ. What a thing to happen." One might often see exclamation marks instead of periods in such reported utterances, thought or spoken.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Michael Harvey
7,6181720
10
Amen! I was a bit surprised the original didn’t end with an exclamation point.
– J.R.♦
Aug 23 at 9:44
1
exclamation marks are considered a bit vulgar by some writers, the reader should know it is an exclamation without the need for extra punctuation. bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23781044
– WendyG
Aug 24 at 14:01
2
This is a work of fiction, not a grade school essay.
– Michael Harvey
Aug 24 at 22:12
1
Nit-pick: “I am happy I am fine†is a legitimate variation of “I am happy that I am fine.†We frequently omit “that†in such sentences. (Though I personally prefer to put it in for clarity.)
– WGroleau
Aug 24 at 23:11
1
@WillCrawford Writing a question without a question mark is a stylistic decision--not merely of writing style but of speech style, it represents a different intonation. Perhaps it is a rhetorical question. Perhaps it is merely spoken deadpan? This is exactly what the author of the above is doing, and why insisting on an exclamation point is wrong. The grammar is no different, but the style and tone of the speech utterance (or in this case thought) is.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:20
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
24
down vote
up vote
24
down vote
As James scrubs the frying pan, he ponders (thinks). This is a signal that what follows are his thoughts. He is thinking about the refrigerator not working, but at least he can cook, etc. He considers the death of a guest in his hotel. He has insurance but... At that point, the text reports directly what would be a religious oath if spoken aloud: "Christ. What a thing to happen." One might often see exclamation marks instead of periods in such reported utterances, thought or spoken.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Michael Harvey
7,6181720
As James scrubs the frying pan, he ponders (thinks). This is a signal that what follows are his thoughts. He is thinking about the refrigerator not working, but at least he can cook, etc. He considers the death of a guest in his hotel. He has insurance but... At that point, the text reports directly what would be a religious oath if spoken aloud: "Christ. What a thing to happen." One might often see exclamation marks instead of periods in such reported utterances, thought or spoken.
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Michael Harvey
7,6181720
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Michael Harvey
7,6181720
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Michael Harvey
7,6181720
answered Aug 23 at 9:22
Michael Harvey
7,6181720
7,6181720
10
Amen! I was a bit surprised the original didn’t end with an exclamation point.
– J.R.♦
Aug 23 at 9:44
1
exclamation marks are considered a bit vulgar by some writers, the reader should know it is an exclamation without the need for extra punctuation. bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23781044
– WendyG
Aug 24 at 14:01
2
This is a work of fiction, not a grade school essay.
– Michael Harvey
Aug 24 at 22:12
1
Nit-pick: “I am happy I am fine†is a legitimate variation of “I am happy that I am fine.†We frequently omit “that†in such sentences. (Though I personally prefer to put it in for clarity.)
– WGroleau
Aug 24 at 23:11
1
@WillCrawford Writing a question without a question mark is a stylistic decision--not merely of writing style but of speech style, it represents a different intonation. Perhaps it is a rhetorical question. Perhaps it is merely spoken deadpan? This is exactly what the author of the above is doing, and why insisting on an exclamation point is wrong. The grammar is no different, but the style and tone of the speech utterance (or in this case thought) is.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:20
 |Â
show 7 more comments
10
Amen! I was a bit surprised the original didn’t end with an exclamation point.
– J.R.♦
Aug 23 at 9:44
1
exclamation marks are considered a bit vulgar by some writers, the reader should know it is an exclamation without the need for extra punctuation. bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23781044
– WendyG
Aug 24 at 14:01
2
This is a work of fiction, not a grade school essay.
– Michael Harvey
Aug 24 at 22:12
1
Nit-pick: “I am happy I am fine†is a legitimate variation of “I am happy that I am fine.†We frequently omit “that†in such sentences. (Though I personally prefer to put it in for clarity.)
– WGroleau
Aug 24 at 23:11
1
@WillCrawford Writing a question without a question mark is a stylistic decision--not merely of writing style but of speech style, it represents a different intonation. Perhaps it is a rhetorical question. Perhaps it is merely spoken deadpan? This is exactly what the author of the above is doing, and why insisting on an exclamation point is wrong. The grammar is no different, but the style and tone of the speech utterance (or in this case thought) is.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:20
10
10
Amen! I was a bit surprised the original didn’t end with an exclamation point.
– J.R.♦
Aug 23 at 9:44
Amen! I was a bit surprised the original didn’t end with an exclamation point.
– J.R.♦
Aug 23 at 9:44
1
1
exclamation marks are considered a bit vulgar by some writers, the reader should know it is an exclamation without the need for extra punctuation. bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23781044
– WendyG
Aug 24 at 14:01
exclamation marks are considered a bit vulgar by some writers, the reader should know it is an exclamation without the need for extra punctuation. bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23781044
– WendyG
Aug 24 at 14:01
2
2
This is a work of fiction, not a grade school essay.
– Michael Harvey
Aug 24 at 22:12
This is a work of fiction, not a grade school essay.
– Michael Harvey
Aug 24 at 22:12
1
1
Nit-pick: “I am happy I am fine†is a legitimate variation of “I am happy that I am fine.†We frequently omit “that†in such sentences. (Though I personally prefer to put it in for clarity.)
– WGroleau
Aug 24 at 23:11
Nit-pick: “I am happy I am fine†is a legitimate variation of “I am happy that I am fine.†We frequently omit “that†in such sentences. (Though I personally prefer to put it in for clarity.)
– WGroleau
Aug 24 at 23:11
1
1
@WillCrawford Writing a question without a question mark is a stylistic decision--not merely of writing style but of speech style, it represents a different intonation. Perhaps it is a rhetorical question. Perhaps it is merely spoken deadpan? This is exactly what the author of the above is doing, and why insisting on an exclamation point is wrong. The grammar is no different, but the style and tone of the speech utterance (or in this case thought) is.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:20
@WillCrawford Writing a question without a question mark is a stylistic decision--not merely of writing style but of speech style, it represents a different intonation. Perhaps it is a rhetorical question. Perhaps it is merely spoken deadpan? This is exactly what the author of the above is doing, and why insisting on an exclamation point is wrong. The grammar is no different, but the style and tone of the speech utterance (or in this case thought) is.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:20
 |Â
show 7 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
I think it would be clearer if the sentences had been punctuated differently.
Rather than:
He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
I’d write (to express the same meaning):
He has insurance. But Christ! What a thing to happen.
The second variant makes it clearer that “Christ†is an exclamation, not a continuation of the previous sentence, and that “But†is a conjunction that introduces the following sentence. You could even use em dashes to mark the exclamation as a parenthetical remark:
He has insurance. But — Christ! — what a thing to happen.
I’m not entirely sure why the original text’s author chose to do this differently but it seems to be a somewhat common stylistic choice to combine sentence fragments in this way using commas.
answered Aug 23 at 13:28
Konrad Rudolph
34117
4
To me, "but Christ!" reads as an expression of extreme frustration, whereas "but Christ." reads as a casual expression distress. A reason the author didn't use an ! might be because they didn't want to give the text that much intensity.
– Vaelus
Aug 23 at 16:21
6
Or even "But Christ, what a thing to happen." or "But, Christ, what a thing to happen."
– David Richerby
Aug 23 at 16:23
1
@Vaelus Fair enough. But it really shouldn’t be part of the preceding sentence. If anything, it’s part of the following sentence, as in David’s comment or my third version.
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 23 at 16:26
I'm interpreting it more as "He has insurance, but [Christ. What a thing to happen]." The brackets denote what is being covered by the but. In other words, "Christ. What a thing to happen." is two sentences, and the author wanted both to be covered by the but.
– Duncan X Simpson
Aug 23 at 16:59
2
i think the existing punctuation avoids the exclamation mark or emdash here because the point is the narrator is trying to reassure himself, stay calm, and deny that there's a problem, so dramatic emphasis is not called for.
– Nathan Hughes
Aug 24 at 13:20
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
I think it would be clearer if the sentences had been punctuated differently.
Rather than:
He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
I’d write (to express the same meaning):
He has insurance. But Christ! What a thing to happen.
The second variant makes it clearer that “Christ†is an exclamation, not a continuation of the previous sentence, and that “But†is a conjunction that introduces the following sentence. You could even use em dashes to mark the exclamation as a parenthetical remark:
He has insurance. But — Christ! — what a thing to happen.
I’m not entirely sure why the original text’s author chose to do this differently but it seems to be a somewhat common stylistic choice to combine sentence fragments in this way using commas.
answered Aug 23 at 13:28
Konrad Rudolph
34117
4
To me, "but Christ!" reads as an expression of extreme frustration, whereas "but Christ." reads as a casual expression distress. A reason the author didn't use an ! might be because they didn't want to give the text that much intensity.
– Vaelus
Aug 23 at 16:21
6
Or even "But Christ, what a thing to happen." or "But, Christ, what a thing to happen."
– David Richerby
Aug 23 at 16:23
1
@Vaelus Fair enough. But it really shouldn’t be part of the preceding sentence. If anything, it’s part of the following sentence, as in David’s comment or my third version.
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 23 at 16:26
I'm interpreting it more as "He has insurance, but [Christ. What a thing to happen]." The brackets denote what is being covered by the but. In other words, "Christ. What a thing to happen." is two sentences, and the author wanted both to be covered by the but.
– Duncan X Simpson
Aug 23 at 16:59
2
i think the existing punctuation avoids the exclamation mark or emdash here because the point is the narrator is trying to reassure himself, stay calm, and deny that there's a problem, so dramatic emphasis is not called for.
– Nathan Hughes
Aug 24 at 13:20
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
22
down vote
up vote
22
down vote
I think it would be clearer if the sentences had been punctuated differently.
Rather than:
He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
I’d write (to express the same meaning):
He has insurance. But Christ! What a thing to happen.
The second variant makes it clearer that “Christ†is an exclamation, not a continuation of the previous sentence, and that “But†is a conjunction that introduces the following sentence. You could even use em dashes to mark the exclamation as a parenthetical remark:
He has insurance. But — Christ! — what a thing to happen.
I’m not entirely sure why the original text’s author chose to do this differently but it seems to be a somewhat common stylistic choice to combine sentence fragments in this way using commas.
answered Aug 23 at 13:28
Konrad Rudolph
34117
I think it would be clearer if the sentences had been punctuated differently.
Rather than:
He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
I’d write (to express the same meaning):
He has insurance. But Christ! What a thing to happen.
The second variant makes it clearer that “Christ†is an exclamation, not a continuation of the previous sentence, and that “But†is a conjunction that introduces the following sentence. You could even use em dashes to mark the exclamation as a parenthetical remark:
He has insurance. But — Christ! — what a thing to happen.
I’m not entirely sure why the original text’s author chose to do this differently but it seems to be a somewhat common stylistic choice to combine sentence fragments in this way using commas.
answered Aug 23 at 13:28
Konrad Rudolph
34117
answered Aug 23 at 13:28
Konrad Rudolph
34117
answered Aug 23 at 13:28
Konrad Rudolph
34117
answered Aug 23 at 13:28
Konrad Rudolph
34117
34117
4
To me, "but Christ!" reads as an expression of extreme frustration, whereas "but Christ." reads as a casual expression distress. A reason the author didn't use an ! might be because they didn't want to give the text that much intensity.
– Vaelus
Aug 23 at 16:21
6
Or even "But Christ, what a thing to happen." or "But, Christ, what a thing to happen."
– David Richerby
Aug 23 at 16:23
1
@Vaelus Fair enough. But it really shouldn’t be part of the preceding sentence. If anything, it’s part of the following sentence, as in David’s comment or my third version.
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 23 at 16:26
I'm interpreting it more as "He has insurance, but [Christ. What a thing to happen]." The brackets denote what is being covered by the but. In other words, "Christ. What a thing to happen." is two sentences, and the author wanted both to be covered by the but.
– Duncan X Simpson
Aug 23 at 16:59
2
i think the existing punctuation avoids the exclamation mark or emdash here because the point is the narrator is trying to reassure himself, stay calm, and deny that there's a problem, so dramatic emphasis is not called for.
– Nathan Hughes
Aug 24 at 13:20
 |Â
show 2 more comments
4
To me, "but Christ!" reads as an expression of extreme frustration, whereas "but Christ." reads as a casual expression distress. A reason the author didn't use an ! might be because they didn't want to give the text that much intensity.
– Vaelus
Aug 23 at 16:21
6
Or even "But Christ, what a thing to happen." or "But, Christ, what a thing to happen."
– David Richerby
Aug 23 at 16:23
1
@Vaelus Fair enough. But it really shouldn’t be part of the preceding sentence. If anything, it’s part of the following sentence, as in David’s comment or my third version.
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 23 at 16:26
I'm interpreting it more as "He has insurance, but [Christ. What a thing to happen]." The brackets denote what is being covered by the but. In other words, "Christ. What a thing to happen." is two sentences, and the author wanted both to be covered by the but.
– Duncan X Simpson
Aug 23 at 16:59
2
i think the existing punctuation avoids the exclamation mark or emdash here because the point is the narrator is trying to reassure himself, stay calm, and deny that there's a problem, so dramatic emphasis is not called for.
– Nathan Hughes
Aug 24 at 13:20
4
4
To me, "but Christ!" reads as an expression of extreme frustration, whereas "but Christ." reads as a casual expression distress. A reason the author didn't use an ! might be because they didn't want to give the text that much intensity.
– Vaelus
Aug 23 at 16:21
To me, "but Christ!" reads as an expression of extreme frustration, whereas "but Christ." reads as a casual expression distress. A reason the author didn't use an ! might be because they didn't want to give the text that much intensity.
– Vaelus
Aug 23 at 16:21
6
6
Or even "But Christ, what a thing to happen." or "But, Christ, what a thing to happen."
– David Richerby
Aug 23 at 16:23
Or even "But Christ, what a thing to happen." or "But, Christ, what a thing to happen."
– David Richerby
Aug 23 at 16:23
1
1
@Vaelus Fair enough. But it really shouldn’t be part of the preceding sentence. If anything, it’s part of the following sentence, as in David’s comment or my third version.
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 23 at 16:26
@Vaelus Fair enough. But it really shouldn’t be part of the preceding sentence. If anything, it’s part of the following sentence, as in David’s comment or my third version.
– Konrad Rudolph
Aug 23 at 16:26
I'm interpreting it more as "He has insurance, but [Christ. What a thing to happen]." The brackets denote what is being covered by the but. In other words, "Christ. What a thing to happen." is two sentences, and the author wanted both to be covered by the but.
– Duncan X Simpson
Aug 23 at 16:59
I'm interpreting it more as "He has insurance, but [Christ. What a thing to happen]." The brackets denote what is being covered by the but. In other words, "Christ. What a thing to happen." is two sentences, and the author wanted both to be covered by the but.
– Duncan X Simpson
Aug 23 at 16:59
2
2
i think the existing punctuation avoids the exclamation mark or emdash here because the point is the narrator is trying to reassure himself, stay calm, and deny that there's a problem, so dramatic emphasis is not called for.
– Nathan Hughes
Aug 24 at 13:20
i think the existing punctuation avoids the exclamation mark or emdash here because the point is the narrator is trying to reassure himself, stay calm, and deny that there's a problem, so dramatic emphasis is not called for.
– Nathan Hughes
Aug 24 at 13:20
 |Â
show 2 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
As the other answers have explained, "Christ" here is being used as an oath, in the sense of
An irreverent or careless use of a sacred name (Merriam-Webster)
A profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotions (Oxford Dictionaries)
The meaning would be the same if you replaced the word "Christ" with something like "holy crap" or "oh my god" or even "wow".
I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct.
If you want the meaning of that to be "He has no insurance except for his faith in Christ", that wouldn't have the comma.
answered Aug 23 at 16:32
David Richerby
6,4731739
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
As the other answers have explained, "Christ" here is being used as an oath, in the sense of
An irreverent or careless use of a sacred name (Merriam-Webster)
A profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotions (Oxford Dictionaries)
The meaning would be the same if you replaced the word "Christ" with something like "holy crap" or "oh my god" or even "wow".
I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct.
If you want the meaning of that to be "He has no insurance except for his faith in Christ", that wouldn't have the comma.
answered Aug 23 at 16:32
David Richerby
6,4731739
add a comment |Â
up vote
6
down vote
up vote
6
down vote
As the other answers have explained, "Christ" here is being used as an oath, in the sense of
An irreverent or careless use of a sacred name (Merriam-Webster)
A profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotions (Oxford Dictionaries)
The meaning would be the same if you replaced the word "Christ" with something like "holy crap" or "oh my god" or even "wow".
I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct.
If you want the meaning of that to be "He has no insurance except for his faith in Christ", that wouldn't have the comma.
answered Aug 23 at 16:32
David Richerby
6,4731739
As the other answers have explained, "Christ" here is being used as an oath, in the sense of
An irreverent or careless use of a sacred name (Merriam-Webster)
A profane or offensive expression used to express anger or other strong emotions (Oxford Dictionaries)
The meaning would be the same if you replaced the word "Christ" with something like "holy crap" or "oh my god" or even "wow".
I think that if the writer said "He has no insurance, but Christ" it would be correct.
If you want the meaning of that to be "He has no insurance except for his faith in Christ", that wouldn't have the comma.
answered Aug 23 at 16:32
David Richerby
6,4731739
answered Aug 23 at 16:32
David Richerby
6,4731739
answered Aug 23 at 16:32
David Richerby
6,4731739
answered Aug 23 at 16:32
David Richerby
6,4731739
6,4731739
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
As others have pointed out, it’s not about the insurance. What I would like to point out is that the period after Christ is probably what caused your confusion and is what is wrong with the sentence.
. He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
The period indicates a complete sentence an end to the thought, but really it is just the opening to the real thought - that this was a terrible thing to happen. Punctuation is used as a way of grouping and separating things, ideas, thoughts, who said what, action, etc. The punctuation in these two sentences is incorrect, because they shouldn’t be two sentences they should be one.
The writer is trying to say that a terrible thing happened, while simultaneously saying that it could have been worse and that it wasn’t his fault and really shouldn’t impact him. The incorrect punctuation both separated those things, and by incorrectly grouping parts of them the whole is confusing-the “Christ†could be taken as a complaint about the deductible or trouble that insurance doesn’t cover. I don’t think that is what is meant, but it could be.
answered Aug 25 at 13:27
jmoreno
37115
1
"Christ. What a thing to happen." and "Christ! What a thing to happen!" are grammatically the same thing, but very different in tone. The former is not an error.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:21
@Wlerin: punctuation can change tone (as in your example), but it can also change meaning. In the OPs example the punctuation makes the meaning ambiguous.
– jmoreno
Aug 26 at 12:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
As others have pointed out, it’s not about the insurance. What I would like to point out is that the period after Christ is probably what caused your confusion and is what is wrong with the sentence.
. He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
The period indicates a complete sentence an end to the thought, but really it is just the opening to the real thought - that this was a terrible thing to happen. Punctuation is used as a way of grouping and separating things, ideas, thoughts, who said what, action, etc. The punctuation in these two sentences is incorrect, because they shouldn’t be two sentences they should be one.
The writer is trying to say that a terrible thing happened, while simultaneously saying that it could have been worse and that it wasn’t his fault and really shouldn’t impact him. The incorrect punctuation both separated those things, and by incorrectly grouping parts of them the whole is confusing-the “Christ†could be taken as a complaint about the deductible or trouble that insurance doesn’t cover. I don’t think that is what is meant, but it could be.
answered Aug 25 at 13:27
jmoreno
37115
1
"Christ. What a thing to happen." and "Christ! What a thing to happen!" are grammatically the same thing, but very different in tone. The former is not an error.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:21
@Wlerin: punctuation can change tone (as in your example), but it can also change meaning. In the OPs example the punctuation makes the meaning ambiguous.
– jmoreno
Aug 26 at 12:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
As others have pointed out, it’s not about the insurance. What I would like to point out is that the period after Christ is probably what caused your confusion and is what is wrong with the sentence.
. He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
The period indicates a complete sentence an end to the thought, but really it is just the opening to the real thought - that this was a terrible thing to happen. Punctuation is used as a way of grouping and separating things, ideas, thoughts, who said what, action, etc. The punctuation in these two sentences is incorrect, because they shouldn’t be two sentences they should be one.
The writer is trying to say that a terrible thing happened, while simultaneously saying that it could have been worse and that it wasn’t his fault and really shouldn’t impact him. The incorrect punctuation both separated those things, and by incorrectly grouping parts of them the whole is confusing-the “Christ†could be taken as a complaint about the deductible or trouble that insurance doesn’t cover. I don’t think that is what is meant, but it could be.
answered Aug 25 at 13:27
jmoreno
37115
As others have pointed out, it’s not about the insurance. What I would like to point out is that the period after Christ is probably what caused your confusion and is what is wrong with the sentence.
. He has insurance, but Christ. What a thing to happen.
The period indicates a complete sentence an end to the thought, but really it is just the opening to the real thought - that this was a terrible thing to happen. Punctuation is used as a way of grouping and separating things, ideas, thoughts, who said what, action, etc. The punctuation in these two sentences is incorrect, because they shouldn’t be two sentences they should be one.
The writer is trying to say that a terrible thing happened, while simultaneously saying that it could have been worse and that it wasn’t his fault and really shouldn’t impact him. The incorrect punctuation both separated those things, and by incorrectly grouping parts of them the whole is confusing-the “Christ†could be taken as a complaint about the deductible or trouble that insurance doesn’t cover. I don’t think that is what is meant, but it could be.
answered Aug 25 at 13:27
jmoreno
37115
answered Aug 25 at 13:27
jmoreno
37115
answered Aug 25 at 13:27
jmoreno
37115
answered Aug 25 at 13:27
jmoreno
37115
37115
1
"Christ. What a thing to happen." and "Christ! What a thing to happen!" are grammatically the same thing, but very different in tone. The former is not an error.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:21
@Wlerin: punctuation can change tone (as in your example), but it can also change meaning. In the OPs example the punctuation makes the meaning ambiguous.
– jmoreno
Aug 26 at 12:54
add a comment |Â
1
"Christ. What a thing to happen." and "Christ! What a thing to happen!" are grammatically the same thing, but very different in tone. The former is not an error.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:21
@Wlerin: punctuation can change tone (as in your example), but it can also change meaning. In the OPs example the punctuation makes the meaning ambiguous.
– jmoreno
Aug 26 at 12:54
1
1
"Christ. What a thing to happen." and "Christ! What a thing to happen!" are grammatically the same thing, but very different in tone. The former is not an error.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:21
"Christ. What a thing to happen." and "Christ! What a thing to happen!" are grammatically the same thing, but very different in tone. The former is not an error.
– Wlerin
Aug 26 at 4:21
@Wlerin: punctuation can change tone (as in your example), but it can also change meaning. In the OPs example the punctuation makes the meaning ambiguous.
– jmoreno
Aug 26 at 12:54
@Wlerin: punctuation can change tone (as in your example), but it can also change meaning. In the OPs example the punctuation makes the meaning ambiguous.
– jmoreno
Aug 26 at 12:54
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The author uses the phrase as an aside explaining the situation the owner now faces:
an accident, presumably fatal, involving a guest.
Since he has insurance, he may not be liable financially for the accident, and should not be anxious. “But Christ†is a commonly used emphasizer, sometimes seen as “But Christ Almightyâ€Â...
I know it is good to check my blood sugar in the morning but Christ
Almighty if the lances don’t hurt like no tomorrow!
Or “But Jesus H. Christâ€Â...
Johnson was a role-model student, but Jesus H. Christ take a bath once
in a while.
edited Aug 25 at 13:46
helen
1,8761219
answered Aug 25 at 7:49
Dave Jackson
1
Welcome to ELL, and thanks for trying to contribute on this question. The site is a knowledge base rather than a forum. The objective is for each answer to provide something substantively different from what has already been contributed. Your answer would be good if it was earlier, however it kind of duplicates the previous answers at this point. But do continue to contribute on other questions that interest you.
– fixer1234
Aug 25 at 8:43
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
The author uses the phrase as an aside explaining the situation the owner now faces:
an accident, presumably fatal, involving a guest.
Since he has insurance, he may not be liable financially for the accident, and should not be anxious. “But Christ†is a commonly used emphasizer, sometimes seen as “But Christ Almightyâ€Â...
I know it is good to check my blood sugar in the morning but Christ
Almighty if the lances don’t hurt like no tomorrow!
Or “But Jesus H. Christâ€Â...
Johnson was a role-model student, but Jesus H. Christ take a bath once
in a while.
edited Aug 25 at 13:46
helen
1,8761219
answered Aug 25 at 7:49
Dave Jackson
1
Welcome to ELL, and thanks for trying to contribute on this question. The site is a knowledge base rather than a forum. The objective is for each answer to provide something substantively different from what has already been contributed. Your answer would be good if it was earlier, however it kind of duplicates the previous answers at this point. But do continue to contribute on other questions that interest you.
– fixer1234
Aug 25 at 8:43
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The author uses the phrase as an aside explaining the situation the owner now faces:
an accident, presumably fatal, involving a guest.
Since he has insurance, he may not be liable financially for the accident, and should not be anxious. “But Christ†is a commonly used emphasizer, sometimes seen as “But Christ Almightyâ€Â...
I know it is good to check my blood sugar in the morning but Christ
Almighty if the lances don’t hurt like no tomorrow!
Or “But Jesus H. Christâ€Â...
Johnson was a role-model student, but Jesus H. Christ take a bath once
in a while.
edited Aug 25 at 13:46
helen
1,8761219
answered Aug 25 at 7:49
Dave Jackson
1
The author uses the phrase as an aside explaining the situation the owner now faces:
an accident, presumably fatal, involving a guest.
Since he has insurance, he may not be liable financially for the accident, and should not be anxious. “But Christ†is a commonly used emphasizer, sometimes seen as “But Christ Almightyâ€Â...
I know it is good to check my blood sugar in the morning but Christ
Almighty if the lances don’t hurt like no tomorrow!
Or “But Jesus H. Christâ€Â...
Johnson was a role-model student, but Jesus H. Christ take a bath once
in a while.
edited Aug 25 at 13:46
helen
1,8761219
answered Aug 25 at 7:49
Dave Jackson
1
edited Aug 25 at 13:46
helen
1,8761219
edited Aug 25 at 13:46
helen
1,8761219
edited Aug 25 at 13:46
helen
1,8761219
1,8761219
answered Aug 25 at 7:49
Dave Jackson
1
answered Aug 25 at 7:49
Dave Jackson
1
answered Aug 25 at 7:49
Dave Jackson
1
1
Welcome to ELL, and thanks for trying to contribute on this question. The site is a knowledge base rather than a forum. The objective is for each answer to provide something substantively different from what has already been contributed. Your answer would be good if it was earlier, however it kind of duplicates the previous answers at this point. But do continue to contribute on other questions that interest you.
– fixer1234
Aug 25 at 8:43
add a comment |Â
Welcome to ELL, and thanks for trying to contribute on this question. The site is a knowledge base rather than a forum. The objective is for each answer to provide something substantively different from what has already been contributed. Your answer would be good if it was earlier, however it kind of duplicates the previous answers at this point. But do continue to contribute on other questions that interest you.
– fixer1234
Aug 25 at 8:43
Welcome to ELL, and thanks for trying to contribute on this question. The site is a knowledge base rather than a forum. The objective is for each answer to provide something substantively different from what has already been contributed. Your answer would be good if it was earlier, however it kind of duplicates the previous answers at this point. But do continue to contribute on other questions that interest you.
– fixer1234
Aug 25 at 8:43
Welcome to ELL, and thanks for trying to contribute on this question. The site is a knowledge base rather than a forum. The objective is for each answer to provide something substantively different from what has already been contributed. Your answer would be good if it was earlier, however it kind of duplicates the previous answers at this point. But do continue to contribute on other questions that interest you.
– fixer1234
Aug 25 at 8:43
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I agree with former answers with the slight modification to assert that people often interject the word Christ as an appeal to the divine. In the cited text, the hotel owner is protected from financial or legal responsibility by having insurance and checking the carpet to make sure it's tight, but requests divine protection should there be a spiritual liability assessed against him. He feels it necessary to request this as he feels guilt despite knowing on rational grounds there was nothing he could do to prevent the accident (or it's severity)
I also agree with other answers that this should have been punctuated as one sentence:
He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen!
answered Aug 25 at 20:18
Sean Hare
111
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
I agree with former answers with the slight modification to assert that people often interject the word Christ as an appeal to the divine. In the cited text, the hotel owner is protected from financial or legal responsibility by having insurance and checking the carpet to make sure it's tight, but requests divine protection should there be a spiritual liability assessed against him. He feels it necessary to request this as he feels guilt despite knowing on rational grounds there was nothing he could do to prevent the accident (or it's severity)
I also agree with other answers that this should have been punctuated as one sentence:
He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen!
answered Aug 25 at 20:18
Sean Hare
111
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
I agree with former answers with the slight modification to assert that people often interject the word Christ as an appeal to the divine. In the cited text, the hotel owner is protected from financial or legal responsibility by having insurance and checking the carpet to make sure it's tight, but requests divine protection should there be a spiritual liability assessed against him. He feels it necessary to request this as he feels guilt despite knowing on rational grounds there was nothing he could do to prevent the accident (or it's severity)
I also agree with other answers that this should have been punctuated as one sentence:
He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen!
answered Aug 25 at 20:18
Sean Hare
111
I agree with former answers with the slight modification to assert that people often interject the word Christ as an appeal to the divine. In the cited text, the hotel owner is protected from financial or legal responsibility by having insurance and checking the carpet to make sure it's tight, but requests divine protection should there be a spiritual liability assessed against him. He feels it necessary to request this as he feels guilt despite knowing on rational grounds there was nothing he could do to prevent the accident (or it's severity)
I also agree with other answers that this should have been punctuated as one sentence:
He has insurance, but Christ, what a thing to happen!
answered Aug 25 at 20:18
Sean Hare
111
answered Aug 25 at 20:18
Sean Hare
111
answered Aug 25 at 20:18
Sean Hare
111
answered Aug 25 at 20:18
Sean Hare
111
111
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fell.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f177103%2fwhat-does-he-has-insurance-but-christ-mean%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
But it must still have been unpleasant?
– mathreadler
Aug 24 at 13:39
5
I think they have used a period instead of a comma. I think it should be "He has insurance but, Christ, what a thing to happen". In this way the meaning is still correct without the exclamation.
– Neil
Aug 24 at 16:23