以下論述的最后一句怎么樣理解其語法結(jié)構(gòu)？

If intentionality is only a 百度競價(jià)推廣antic property, it is virtually ubiquitous. If intentionality is variable binding and lookup, then it is quite common. If intentionality is consciousness, etc. then it is quite rare.

Is that it would appear that its quite rare, then; and that it isnt computation.

在這段論述中，最后一句“Is that it would appear that its quite rare, then; and that it isnt computation.”

好像這是個(gè)疑問句？但卻沒疑問的感覺。它到底的意思是？

第二上述的內(nèi)容也不可以理解�？粗�假如意向性（intentionality）是非常普通的，但又說它是稀少的。豈不是自相矛盾？

網(wǎng)友這個(gè)語料來自一篇文章，https://archipel.uqam.ca/127/1/harnad90.dietrich.crit.html

原文是如此的：



And the obvious answer to the observation that

If intentionality is only a 百度競價(jià)推廣antic property, it is virtually ubiquitous. If intentionality is variable binding and lookup, then it is quite common. If intentionality is consciousness, etc. then it is quite rare.
Is that it would appear that its quite rare, then; and that it isnt computation.


試剖析，主干是the answer is that...,主系表結(jié)構(gòu)；中間的斜體作observation的同位語。

網(wǎng)友可能被Is （that）首字母大寫給誤導(dǎo)了。原文本第一行And...和最后一行Is that...都是首字母無縮進(jìn)，中間三行縮進(jìn)四個(gè)字母。由此可以看出首末兩行邏輯關(guān)系。

那樣，作者為何那樣任性，把常規(guī)is寫成Is呢？由于中間的同位語是一段話，而且句子首字母大寫，有句號，假如下面Is不大寫，關(guān)系就不明朗。