Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2010 July 19

= July 19 =

Not only... but (also)...
I was reading something online about a recent College Board Official SAT Question of the Day, which went as follows: "Tantra paintings from India are not only beautiful but _____: in addition to their aesthetic value, they are used to facilitate meditation." The answer here was "functional". However, I have a question on the correlative conjunctive (at least, I think that's what it's called) in the sentence. It seems that, per web searching, "not only... but also..." is more popular and common than simply "not only... but...". But when is it appropriate to omit the 'also'? Are there any special grammar rules one must follow which determine whether or not to include 'also', or does it boil down to whichever sounds smoother? Are they interchangeable, and if they are, in what type of situations? Any examples would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! 141.153.217.214 (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's one usage where you couldn't dispense with the 'also'. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WHAAOE! hydnjo (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend using "not only X but also Y" whenever you can, that is to say, whenever both X and Y are valid.
 * "not only a scholar but also a gentleman"
 * "not only a spouse but also a parent"
 * I recommend restricting the use of "not only X but Y" to situations where Y is valid but X is not valid.
 * "not only an amateur but a professional"
 * "not only a middleweight but a heavyweight"
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wavelength, I find your latter examples deviant: to me "not only X" implies X, so I would find those confusing. My answer to the OP is that there is no grammatical rule relating to the "also" but that rhetorically and prosodically it balances the two terms. --ColinFine (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Experience might be limited to usage where X is valid, not only in your case but also in my case, but there is nothing inherent in the words and their definitions that would restrict us from using them where X is not valid.
 * "not (only/just) an amateur but (even/rather) a professional"
 * "not (just/only) a middleweight but (rather/even) a heavyweight"
 * —Wavelength (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a logic flaw there? "Not just/only a middleweight ..." says to me that, whatever else this person can be said to be, he is still a middleweight. But if he's a heavyweight, how can he simultaneously be a middleweight?  Isn't this like saying "He's not only poor, but also rich"?  --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To me, the expression "not just/only a middleweight" is ambiguous as to whether this person is a middleweight. The expression "but rather/even a heavyweight" disambiguates the first expression.  It makes clear that this person is not a middleweight.—Wavelength (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So why mention middleweight at all? There are bazillions of things a person is not; except in particular cases, we talk only about what they are.  If someone's suggested that he's a middleweight, but we know that's wrong and and we're refuting it, we'd say "He is not a middleweight, but a heavyweight".  Putting in "just" or "only" after "not" says something very different.  180 degrees different.  And as confusing as "Columbus did not just land in China, he landed in the Americas".  That's rubbish, as he did not land anywhere near China, despite what he may have believed.  Take the "just" out and you've got a decent statement that's supported by historical facts.  As it stands, the sentence is saying Columbus landed in both China and the Americas, which is a physical impossibility unless we're talking about different voyages.  Compare it with sentences like "He was not just/only the national champion, but the world champion".   Does that deny he was the national champion, or is it in any way ambiguous?  Not to me.  If he definitely wasn't the national champion but still the world champion, we'd be either not mentioning the national championship at all, or making it clear he did not hold it.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There can be many reasons to mention what a person is not, and the reasons might be indicated by the context.
 * "He is only a middle manager. His brother is not only a middle manager, but rather the chief executive officer."
 * "Is he only a middle manager? No, he is not only a middle manager, but instead the chief executive officer."
 * "He was not just a runner-up, but instead the winner."
 * "Columbus landed, not just in an insignificant place, but rather in the Americas."
 * "He is not merely a middleweight, but rather a heavyweight."
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This is clearly a case of a huge gap between different varieties of the same language. In my English, a CEO cannot be said to be a middle manager at all, or vice-versa; they're mutually exclusive.  A runner-up is not a winner, and a winner is not a runner-up; they're mutually exclusive.  To me, you're misusing "not just"; you're using it as an exclusionary device, where it's meant to be inclusionary. It's "this, but ALSO something else", but you're using it to mean "something else, and NOT this".   --  202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A chief executive officer is more than a middle manager (in regard to rank), but he/she is not a middle manager and does not include a middle manager. A winner is more than a runner-up (in regard to performance), but he/she is not a runner-up and does not include a runner-up.  If Y is more than X without being or including X, then that entity is not just X but rather Y.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I'm with Jack here. To my ears, what you suggest only works where something can actually be X and Y, and where X and Y are somehow qualitatively related. For example: He doesn't just outweigh a middleweight, but also a heavyweight or He didn't just score more points than the runner-up, but also than the winner, but he was disqualified for cheating. You can be a subject that outweighs both weight categories, but you can't be in both categories at the same time. To me "she isn't just X ..." implies that she is, in fact, X, but also more. ---Sluzzelin talk  03:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually I can imagine a dialogue where someone would say: "Oh, look at that middleweight up against a poor little flyweight". And you could respond: "He's not just a middleweight, but a heavyweight!" Here "is" is short for something like "is at least as heavy as" though, and the response wouldn't make sense with "but also". ---Sluzzelin talk  03:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't most people say "not even" here?   D b f i r s   19:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Inflection of hyphenated adjectives?
I'm curious about forming the comparative and superlative of hyphenated adjectives in English.

Would one do so by declining the first word?

well-known  better-known  best-known true-to-life truer-to-life truest-to-life ill-suited  worse-suited  worst-suited

Or would he do so by declining the whole adjective —as a unit?

well-known  more well-known   most well-known true-to-life more true-to-life most true-to-life ill-suited  more ill-suited   most ill-suited

I, for one, prefer the former in my writing style; nevertheless, I keep encountering the latter quite often. Does any rule exist in Fowler, Oxford, or any other respected authority regarding this? Thus far, my search for one has turned up fruitless. Pine (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did a Google search for comparative and superlative of hyphenated adjectives, and I found answers on the following pages.
 * http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.com/articles/article/426348/2805.htm
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv140.shtml
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_compound#Hyphenated_compound_adjectives
 * http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/compounds.htm
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in http://www.onlinestylebooks.com/home.html. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Japanese video translation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2jVpPDXcac&feature=related

Can someone be kind enough to translate what the characters are saying? Thank you! 64.75.158.194 (talk) 12:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Town in Cyprus
Could someone confirm whether the authentic Greek pronunciation of the Cypriot town of Peyia, that is Πέγεια, is (3 syllables) or  (2 syllables)? I need this so I can most accurately render the name in Bulgarian Cyrillic. Thanks. --Theurgist (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Still me, decided to give up my old sig.