0

From Rodney Huddleston Geoffrey K Pullum. (2017). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. p.87.

For some speakers, irrealis were is not restricted to the modal remoteness constructions, but is found also in certain backshift and past time uses that bear some resemblance to them:

In summary, 'were'is both used in the modal remoteness constructions and backshift and past time uses.

To me, 'restricted' acts the same role as 'only', so omitting 'also' retain the same meaning.

For some speakers, irrealis were is not restricted to the modal remoteness constructions, but is found ['also' is deleted] in certain backshift and past time uses that bear some resemblance to them:

Is this analysis viable?

Improve this question
7
  • 3
    In my opinion, the sentence would be much harder to parse if also were to be omitted.
    – Kate Bunting
    Commented Jan 5 at 10:02
  • 2
    Are you seriously questioning the wording in CGEL? It's perfectly clear and grammatically perfect, so why would you want to change it?
    – BillJ
    Commented Jan 5 at 10:13
  • @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.
    – Mr. Wang
    Commented Jan 5 at 10:19
  • 1
    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.
    – YonKuma
    Commented Jan 5 at 13:26
  • 2
    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! :)
    – FumbleFingers
    Commented Jan 5 at 16:26

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

Consider:

Vitamin E is not limited to nuts and seeds but is found also in certain fruits and vegetables.

Vitamin E is not limited to nuts and seeds; it is found in certain fruits and vegetables as well.

also and as well are not necessary for the sentence to be grammatical.

You would also have available a different punctuation for the second sentence:

Vitamin E is not limited to nuts and seeds: it is found in certain fruits and vegetables.

Without the conjunction it would be a form of parataxis.

Without also and as well the construction might be considered quasi-parataxis, as they supply the construction with an additional syntactic guard-rail.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .