Timeline for Could 'also' be omitted in 'is not restricted to the modal remoteness constructions, but is found also in certain backshift and past time uses'?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9 at 1:51 | vote | accept | Mr. Wang | ||
| Jan 6 at 2:05 | answer | added | TimR | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 5 at 16:26 | comment | added | FumbleFingers | I suspect the OP mistakenly assumes that not only ... but also is some kind of "fixed, unbreakable" construction. In fact it's fine to say X is not only Y - it is Z. And we're not obliged to include words like but, also, too, as well,... within the "contrastive" element. The cited text includes both but and also because doing so makes it much easier to parse, but it would be stylistically "unusual" in this exact context to include not only in the antecedent (it's an educational / reference textbook, not an advert / promotional puff for irrealis mode! :) | |
| Jan 5 at 14:54 | comment | added | Yosef Baskin | This use of also is a good example, per @YonKuma, of one extra word that makes the meaning clearer, even if it could be skipped. You are right that the sentence could skip it. It's a complicated sentence. | |
| Jan 5 at 13:26 | comment | added | YonKuma | With "also" deleted, I have to return to the previous section of the sentence to determine whether or not "modal remoteness constructions" are a subcategory of the newly described extended usage. With "also" it is clear even before finishing the sentence that the new usage is separate, and that "modal remoteness constructions" are not a subcategory. It makes the sentence significantly easier to parse, as it requires one to hold less information in memory at once to parse it. | |
| Jan 5 at 10:25 | comment | added | Stuart F | Are you asking about grammar, style, or meaning? | |
| Jan 5 at 10:19 | comment | added | Mr. Wang | @BillJ I am not questioning, but rather categorizing some usage. For example, in this case, I just want to confirm whether the structure of this sentence is similar to "not only...but also..." due to the word "restricted." Therefore, please do not say that I am questioning. I am earnestly analyzing his sentence. | |
| Jan 5 at 10:13 | comment | added | BillJ | Are you seriously questioning the wording in CGEL? It's perfectly clear and grammatically perfect, so why would you want to change it? | |
| Jan 5 at 10:02 | comment | added | Kate Bunting | In my opinion, the sentence would be much harder to parse if also were to be omitted. | |
| Jan 5 at 9:34 | history | asked | Mr. Wang | CC BY-SA 4.0 |