0

Days later. A week. Two. I don’t know. After Denny’s deflation, time meant little to me; he looked sickly, he had no energy, no life force, and so neither did I. At a point when my hips still bothered me––not so long as to have healed [i], not so soon that the pain was acute [ii]––we went to visit Mike and Tony. (Garth Stein, The Art of Racing in the Rain)

It seems like the first negation is applied on to so long (partially); the second on to so soon that the pain was acute (wholly). Is my guessing right or am I to see other ways? If mine is okay, what factor causes the difference?

Improve this question
0

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

You got it exactly right.

     pain acute to here→|                                              |←hips healed here
     ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
                    ↑↑↑↑↑ not so soon as here   ,  not so long as here ↑↑↑↑↑  
=                       |←------------(somewhere in here)-------------→|
Improve this answer
2
  • MY curiosity is whether this –– when the indirect complement for ‘so’ is ‘degree’ as in [i], the negation applies partially, and when it is ‘result’ as in [ii], the negation does wholly –– could be a general application or not.
    – Listenever
    Commented Nov 24, 2013 at 23:57
  • 2
    @Listenever Ah ... perhaps you are thinking that so long as and so soon that are contrasted here? If that's the case, the author has misled you: the as belongs to as to have = that it had, not to a comparative so long as. Both sos may be expressed by so ADV that STATE: not so long that my hips had healed, not so short that my pain was still acute.
    – StoneyB on hiatus
    Commented Nov 25, 2013 at 0:59

You must log in to answer this question.

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