The passage below is from A History of the Index by Dennis Duncan
What do we mean by an index? At its most general, it is a system adopted as a timesaver, telling us where to look for things. The name suggests a spatial relationship, a map of sorts: something here will point you to – will indicate – something there. The map need not exist in the world; it is enough for it to exist in our minds. Writing in the middle of the last century, Robert Collison proposed that, whenever we organize the world around us so that we know where to find things, we are in fact indexing. He offers a pair of illustrations that could hardly be more 1950s if they came wearing brothel creepers:
When a housewife makes a separate place for everything in the kitchen she is in fact creating a living index, for not only she, but all her household, will gradually get used to the system she has created and be able to discover things for themselves … A man will get into the habit of always putting change in one pocket, keys in another, cigarette-case in a third – an elementary indexing habit which stands him in good stead when he checks up in his hurry to the station to see whether he has remembered his season-ticket.
I have a few questions on the underlined sentence.
First, what does the bold-faced ‘they’ represent? I think it indicates people in general. Am I right?
Second, what does ‘if’ mean in this context? It does not mean ‘even though’ but mean ‘on condition that’, doesn’t it?
Lastly, the meaning of the whole sentence. It seems to say that the illustrations Robert Collison offer would exude just like 1950s atmosphere if people in the illustrations were wearing brothel creepers. Am I right?
Thanks in advance.
Stenka25He offers a pair of illustrations that could hardly be more 1950s if they came wearing brothel creepers:
Stenka25First, what does the bold-faced ‘they’ represent? I think it indicates people in general. Am I right?
No. 'they' represents the illustrations.
Stenka25Second, what does ‘if’ mean in this context? It does not mean ‘even though’ but mean ‘on condition that’, doesn’t it?
You can look at it that way. For me, as a native speaker, 'if' just means 'if', probably because I've heard it so much in the same turn of phrase: "couldn't be more X if - - -".
These three companies couldn't be more different if they tried.
He couldn't be more transparent if he were covered with Glad Wrap.
It couldn't be more frightening if it had fangs, claws and hid under their bed at night.
Stenka25Lastly, the meaning of the whole sentence. It seems to say that the illustrations Robert Collison offer would exude an atmosphere just like the 1950satmosphereif people in the illustrations were wearing brothel creepers. Am I right?
As explained above. Not the people in the illustrations, but the illustrations themselves.
I know that sounds absurd, but I think that's exactly the effect the writer wanted.
CJ
No. It is the illustrations.
That sounds about right.
No. It's tricky. The illustrations are not drawings or anything like that. The writer is using the following definition of "illustration": "an example or instance that helps make something clear" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illustration ). The illustrations are the way the woman arranged her kitchen and the way the man dedicated his pockets. They serve to illustrate, that is, show, how an index can be abstract.
The writer goes on to personify the two illustrations, the two examples, as though they could be wearing clothing characteristic of the 1950s. It is a little joke. If the illustrations were wearing creepers (an impossibility), it would serve only to slightly emphasize what is already their glaringly 1950s-ish character. That character is displayed by her post-war housewifely role and his cigarette case, I guess.
Thanks a lot for your reply as always, CJ.
And for your correcting my errors for good measure.
Thanks a lot as always, anonymous. Your vivid illustrations give me a clear picture of an atmosphere of the 1950s. (But creepers the illustrations were wearing were not clothing but shoes, weren’t it?) Anyhow, thanks a million.
I consider shoes an article of clothing, but I can see how some might think they are a thing apart.
I see what you mean. In English you wear clothes, and shoes. But in Korean we use different verbs in each cases. Perhaps that make me think something wrong.
Now I understand what you are talking about. Thanks.