was ripe for stigmatisation on a number of fronts...

Blue Apple

Senior Member
Persian (Iran)
Does the bold sentence in the context below mean:

... the disease was ripe for 1. stigmatisation on a number of fronts, 2. feeding prejudice against homosexuality, 3. disapproval of sexual freedom and experimentation and 4. fuelling deeply held attitudes towards sexually transmitted disease as shameful

or

the disease was ripe for stigmatisation on a number of fronts: 1. feeding prejudice against homosexuality, 2. disapproval of sexual freedom and experimentation and 3. fuelling deeply held attitudes towards sexually transmitted disease as shameful?




Context:
As others have observed, AIDS did indeed arrive at a time ‘when the New Right were mixing a potent brew of religion and familialism, when feminism and lesbian and gay rights were under attack, when welfare facilities were facing an unprecedented attack’. In other words, the disease was ripe for stigmatisation on a number of fronts, feeding prejudice against homosexuality, disapproval of sexual freedom and experimentation and fuelling deeply held attitudes towards sexually transmitted disease as shameful (Art and Advertising by Joan Gibbons).
 
  • Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    If it means what suzi says it means (and I have no reason to doubt that), then it is badly written. At least it is badly punctuated and should have used a colon instead of a comma after "fronts", but if it means three fronts, it should say "three", and not "a number of".
     

    Blue Apple

    Senior Member
    Persian (Iran)
    Three fronts had the potential to lead to stigmatisation.
    Hi Suzi. And, does "the disease was ripe for stigmatisation on a number of fronts" mean "AIDS provided a good justification for three different types of condemnations and disapprovals: 1..., 2... and 3..."?
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    Hi Suzi. And, does "the disease was ripe for stigmatisation on a number of fronts" mean "AIDS provided a good justification for three different types of condemnations and disapprovals: 1..., 2... and 3..."?
    I'm not sure about that. It's a bit chicken and egg .. which came first? I don't think the disease justified the condemnation. The condemnation and disapproval probably already existed, so that fact that AID might be linked to these "disapproved" behaviours meant the disease (and people who suffered from it) were stigmatised.
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    If it means what suzi says it means (and I have no reason to doubt that), then it is badly written. At least it is badly punctuated and should have used a colon instead of a comma after "fronts", but if it means three fronts, it should say "three", and not "a number of".
    Indeed, I was scouring for the : sign too. Even without it I cannot see the list of three things as being other than that. But then, forced to reconsider by BA's further question, I am left a little unsure! (As we've seen before with this author). It could be that she is muddling her structure and meaning. She'd have benefitted from a better editor, in my view.

    BlueApple: I don't know what you will learn from further work on disentangling this, when she is rather unclear herself and it's not really a good style-model.
    I can't remember: Are you translating the whole thing?
     
    Last edited:

    Edinburgher

    Senior Member
    German/English bilingual
    Perhaps the author's use of "a number of" was intended to mean that there were actually more than three, and the three listed were just examples.
     

    suzi br

    Senior Member
    English / England
    Perhaps the author's use of "a number of" was intended to mean that there were actually more than three, and the three listed were just examples.
    Maybe so.

    I’ve just edited my post, I had made about 5 typos in a post suggesting better editing is required. :rolleyes:

    :D
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top