it was done much quicker than that but...


Senior Member
Hello there,

The following paragraph is a reader's comment on Mail online. Does it mean clearing up the rubble is much quicker than reconstruction work gets stated in the region suffered? What is the subject of the underlined is?

Clearing up the rubble over an 11 month period isn’t really something to boast about – it was done much quicker than that but, the key issue, is that no reconstruction has yet happened.- Andrew Coad, Tokyo, Japan, 13/2/2012 05:23

I would appreciate your assistance. Thank you.

  • Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    I agree with Nat. (There's also a superfluous comma after the earlier "but").

    As regards the meaning of the comment, I see that the headline of the article is
    What a comeback! Eleven months after the tsunami ravaged Japan, a series of pictures reveals the incredible progress being made to clear up the devastation
    and that the pictures illustrate how the area has been cleaned up/cleared of debris in the 11 months since the tsunami.

    The reader is saying three things:
    (1) Clearing up rubble in 11 months isn't really a newsworthy achievement
    (2) Actually, the clearing up work was done more quickly than this.
    (3) The important point, however, is that no reconstruction has started yet.


    Senior Member

    Your headline helped in understanding the comment of the reader. Thank you. In such devastated areas suffered Tsunami, in general, clearing up debris takes more time than construction work.
    Can I say the reader is wondering this case the reality is not like that? I can see from that that is why he mentioned the key issue in his comment. Or did he objectively describe actual events in the area?
    I would appreciate I can hear your comment. Thank you.

    < Previous | Next >