English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am studying a book and one of the lines (which was written in the 30's) is,

We had admitted that we were powerless over alcohol — that our lives had become unmanageable.

My question is whether or not it is to read this as two separate statements — meaning one could be true and not the other; or does it mean if the first is true then the second is also true?

share|improve this question

The second clause is an emphasis, expansion or elucidation of the first. It's not an alternative.

We had admitted that we were powerless over alcohol. We had admitted that our lives had become unmanageable.

Their lives had become unmanageable because of alcohol's power over them.

share|improve this answer
+1 For a technical term: the second that clause is in apposition to the first that clause. – StoneyB Jan 28 '13 at 16:23
Another textbook example of Conjunction Reduction, omitting the repeated subject, auxiliary, and verb in the second clause. And is optional, and here is signalled by the intonation instead. – John Lawler Jan 28 '13 at 16:25

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.