Language desk
< July 22	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 23[edit]

Placement of the adverb "not"[edit]

Why is it so common to place the adverb "not" in a position that makes it appear to modify something other than what it's intended to modify?? Let's look at this statement as an example:

The game of 8-ball is not called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball; it's called 8-ball because it is won by pocketing the 8-ball.

Is this sentence good grammar?? The adverb "not" in this sentence is intended to modify the subordinate clause beginning with "because". However, it appears to modify the verb+object phrase "called 8-ball". Yet, it's the preferred placement over the following variant, where it is clearer that "not" modifies what it's supposed to modify:

The game of 8-ball is called 8-ball not because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball; it's called 8-ball because it is won by pocketing the 8-ball.

In this variant, the adverb "not" clearly appears to modify the clause it's intended to modify. Why, then, is it not the preferred way to say a sentence like this?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human language is not the same as theoretical logic. Linguists have written whole books on "negative scope" or "quantifier scope", and how and why negative words and quantifying words are not always located where they might be expected to be located based on theoretical logic. In English, the word "only" is often located even farther from where it would logically be expected to be located than negative words are... AnonMoos (talk) 00:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For example... (using the word "only") Georgia guy (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many examples where "only" seems to be able to wander semi-freely through a sentence without having much effect on the meaning: "I only saw one movie" vs. "I saw only one movie" vs. "I saw one movie only" etc. etc. AnonMoos (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, the first of those sentences means "I only saw one movie; I didn't rate it or anything similar." The second, in contrast, means "I saw only one movie; I didn't see any other movies." Georgia guy (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To get interpretations such as "I saw the movie without doing anything else with it" or "I perceived the movie with my sense of sight alone", normally the word "saw" would have to be pronounced with some form of emphatic-contrastive stress.

There theoretically could be subtle differences in meaning between the three sentences in my message of "00:28, 24 July 2017", but as they are commonly used by current-day English speakers (without any special emphatic-contrastive stress), in practice they're quasi-synonymous. AnonMoos (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word "not" modifies the entire clause "[is] called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball". In other words, it is NOT the case that it is called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball. Your analysis that it modifies only the fragment "because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball" is inaccurate. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice, that if we had deleted the "not" (so that the sentence would have said: "It's called 8-ball because it uses etc."), then the sentence would have meant as following: It's called 8-ball and that's because it uses etc. Therefore, when adding the "not" before the "called", it may (also) mean as following: It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses etc. Indeed, I wouldn't rule out your interpretation, but the OP's interpretation is possible as well, in my view. HOTmag (talk) 06:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses etc. - weird. That makes no sense to me. A native speaker would never say that. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Would they never say "It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses etc."? Can't a native speaker say "two plus two equals five"? Of course they can, if they haven't studied Math yet! Anyway, I mean that: the game is not called 8-ball, and the reason for this fact, is because the game uses etc. I agree with you that such a sentence would sound illogical and contra-intuitive, but you cannot say that a native speaker would never say contra-intuitive sentences. This has nothing to do with being a native speaker but rather with being logical. HOTmag (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but, as AnonMoos pointed out, theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language. In any event, Fowler's Concise Dictionary of Modern English Usage actually features "Because after negatives" as something that "can technically cause ambiguity because it is not clear whether the reason given is an invalid one for a positive statement or a valid one for a negative statement." It adds: "However, the context will often make the meaning clear." I think the context makes the meaning sufficiently clear in Georgia guy's example. Fowler does suggest "When necessary, a comma will usually remove any ambiguity: The graphic equalizer is not for every hi-fi-customer, because it does require some skill, time and patience in usage—Gramophone, 1976". (That particular solution works for a valid reason of a negative statement, but not for Georgia guy's example). -- 07:14, 24 July 2017 Sluzzelin

theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language. Exactly! That's what I'm claiming. So, a native speaker may say "two plus two equals five" (because theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language), and may also say "It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses only 8 balls" (because theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language), and may also say "It's not called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls", while meaning: "It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses only 8 balls" (because theoretical logic doesn't always dictate Human language). To sum up, we agree. HOTmag (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include me out of your agreement, buddy. "It's not called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls" is fine, in an appropriate context. But "It's not called 8-ball and that's because it uses only 8 balls" is extremely UN-fine. The highlighted added words do irreparable damage to the syntax and meaning, because the words after "8-ball" now seem to be making the case for the wrong derivation of the term "8-ball", which is inimical to the entire purpose of the sentence. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the "and that's because " sentence is un-fine, but this has nothing to do with syntax (which is quite grammatical in this sentence), but rather with its logic. It's like saying "I like to eat apples and that's because they are unpalatable ". I don't think there is anything ungrammatical in both sentences. What I've been claiming since the beginning, is that the sentence "It's not called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls " may mean, both the illogical meaning mentioned above (i.e the "and that's because " meaning), and the other meaning (i.e it is NOT the case that it is called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls plus the cue-ball), so I think this sentence is ambiguous and should be avoided. HOTmag (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's poorly worded. Don't lecture the reader on what it is "not". Simply define why it's called 8-ball and leave it at that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It's not called 8-ball because it uses only 8 balls". That's an awful construction, leaving me perplexed about what it's saying and having to read it again. Here's a much better construction, assuming I didn't misinterpret it: "It's called 8-ball, not because it uses only 8 balls, but because it is won by pocketing the 8-ball." Akld guy (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This sentence is not only poorly worded but also aweful. I've added, that it's aweful also because it's ambiguous: It has two meanings, one of which is illogical. For more details, see my last response to Jack. HOTmag (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]