It was exciting to write about what was happening inside X, issues that were, and are, of importance to many ordinary people.
Why no ‘and’ here? Do you think it’s because every word after the comma is a noun clause in apposition to the noun clause following ‘about’?
I think that everything after the comma has to be a restatement or clarification of “what was happing inside X” (an appositive, in other words). The sentence would be clearer if the writer had said “about issues that were, and are…,” since the addition of a second about would remove any question regarding the intent of the latter part of the sentence.
To assume that an and is missing also presumes that “what was happening inside X” and “issues….” are two different things, which is not only confusing but sloppy.
There are too many people out there who want us to feel hopeless, to think we can’t change the world.
Do you think it’s because ‘to think we can’t change the world’ is an apposition to ‘to feel hopeless’? If it were not in apposition, then technically an ‘and’ could be used.
I think that “to think we can’t change the world” has to be an appositive. If an “and” were added, the phrase would become on of two compound direct objects, each with different meaning, albeit slight.
