0
Moon7296 Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
but (relative pronoun?)
1. There is no one but knows her
According to my book's interpretation, #1 means there's no one who doesn't know her, which means everyone knows her.
Q1) #1 is unfamilar to me. Is it correct? If so, is it just one of the uncommon way to say the meaning?
Q2) What could be most natural if "but" is replaced? Is it "that doesn't?"
Here's another example of that structure.
There is no rule but has exceptions.
According to my book's interpretation, #1 means there's no one who doesn't know her, which means everyone knows her.
Q1) #1 is unfamilar to me. Is it correct? If so, is it just one of the uncommon way to say the meaning?
Q2) What could be most natural if "but" is replaced? Is it "that doesn't?"
Here's another example of that structure.
There is no rule but has exceptions.
Top answer
Hello Moon. Yes, you're right. Your understanding of that use of but is correct, and I'm not surprised the form is not familiar to you because it's almost entirely gone out of use - I can speak only for British English.
- Hello Moon.
- Yes, you're right.
- Your understanding of that use of but is correct, and I'm not surprised the form is not familiar to you because it's almost entirely gone out of use - I can speak only for British English.
- It's handy to know it, obviously, for understanding old texts, but my advice would be to avoid trying to use it, because many people wouldn't understand you.
- Q2) The easiest way is something like Everybody knows her , but, using your proposed formula, I'd say There's no one who doesn't know her .
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
4 Answers
0
Hello Moon.
Yes, you're right. Your understanding of that use of but is correct, and I'm not surprised the form is not familiar to you because it's almost entirely gone out of use - I can speak only for British English.
It's handy to know it, obviously, for understanding old texts, but my advice would be to avoid trying to use it, becau
Yes, you're right. Your understanding of that use of but is correct, and I'm not surprised the form is not familiar to you because it's almost entirely gone out of use - I can speak only for British English.
It's handy to know it, obviously, for understanding old texts, but my advice would be to avoid trying to use it, becau
00
Thomas TompionNo head injury is too trivial to be ignored.I don't think I'd really call that a 'triple negative'.
00
fivejedjonI don't think I'd really call that a 'triple negative'.I think the people who do so reason as follows:
1. No head injury - negative, not one head injury.
2. is too trivial - negative, is not sufficiently important.
3. to be ignored - negative, to be 'not paid attention to'.
We all know that ne
00
I see the reasoning. I, personally, do not consider that to be a triple negative. If we went down that route, then we could end up with short (not long), shallow (not deep), cheap (not expensive), etc, being considered 'negative'.
0
Related Questions