E. Munch donated all his work after his death.
Posted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 6:40 pm
"Edvard Munch (...) donated all his work to the city after his death." (Oslo, Wikipedia.)
I wonder: is such a phrase acceptable? How could one do anything after his death? It's true that all his work begun to belong to the city (of Oslo) after the death of the painter, but the action "to donate" (predicat verb of the phrase) must have happened BEFORE his death, not AFTER.
Why not say: "Edvard Munch donated all his work to the city in his will", or "Edvard Munch donated all his work to the city before his death"? I think the meaning is clear as well, and the logic correct.
Any thoughts?
I wonder: is such a phrase acceptable? How could one do anything after his death? It's true that all his work begun to belong to the city (of Oslo) after the death of the painter, but the action "to donate" (predicat verb of the phrase) must have happened BEFORE his death, not AFTER.
Why not say: "Edvard Munch donated all his work to the city in his will", or "Edvard Munch donated all his work to the city before his death"? I think the meaning is clear as well, and the logic correct.
Any thoughts?