Comment on Neil A.

• Nelots@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  The emphasis is not being placed on was because it’s past tense, it’s being placed on was because the shitpost is ironically somewhat accurate. You can replace it with is if you’d like for the same meaning. On the other hand, everyone knows we’re talking about Neil as there is no other relevant subject, so bringing attention to the word he doesn’t really make any sense.

  Perhaps it would read better if they had said “…he actually was an alien”?

  source

  • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    On the moon he is the alien. Otherwise he if the human and others are the aliens, hence the emphasis that we can be aliens.

    source

    • Nelots@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      According to the dictionary, ‘is’ and ‘was’ are respectively a present and past tense singular of the world ‘be’. The definition of the word ‘be’ (or at least, the one I find relevant here), is “having the state, quality, identity, nature, role, etc., specified”. This seems like a significantly more important part of the sentence to be emphasizing here.

      On the moon he is the alien.

      As opposed to who? I still just can’t understand why you would emphasize ‘he’, when there are no other subjects that we could be talking about. Like, obviously we’re talking about Neil, so why would you put emphasis on it? On the other hand, the fact that he actually ‘is/was’ an alien is pretty surprising to think about and thus the important bit.

      source

      • Eheran@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

        I think we just use/understand language differently?

        If there is nobody else, then he is no alien to anyone anyway?

        source

        • -> View More Comments