can you please help me?!?!

KatkicaHow would you analyse this one:

We get fringe benefits not French benefits.

Is 'not French benefits' a second clause, or is it just a part of a direct object?

Please, you will save my life

I think the sentence is elliptic for:

We get fringe benefits, but we do not get French benefits.

The adverb not modifies do get, not French. The second clause means We in no way, to no degree get French benefits.

Hello
Not to be rude with you, rvw, I'd be inclined to think to the contrary. Shouldn't we take the noun phrase 'fringe benefits not French benefits' as a whole as an direct object..??

Because when we change similar sentence to the past tense and paraphrase,

[1] We ate ten apples not eleven.

[2] We ate ten apples, but we didn't eat eleven apples.

they l

Hello rvw again. A better example sentence:

[1] Issinbaeva cleared 5.01 meters not 5.03.

[2] Issinbaeva cleared 5.01 meters, but not 5.03.

(This pair makes what I wanted to say more clear, I hope.)

We get fringe benefits not French benefits.

"benefits" is the direct object of "get". "Not French benefits" is an apposition to "benefits"

The trouble I have with viewing the whole phrase fringe benefits not French benefits as one direct object is that not is an adverb and so must modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. I think not modifies the implicit verb do get.

I think f

Hello rvw. I'm that anon who asked about apples and Issinbaeva. Oh I see you are not so enthuisiastic for the pole vault (in addition the spelling of her name was wrong: Isinbayeva. She broke the world record at Helsinki, at IAAF world championships this year. She is beautiful, by the way..)

Rho,

Can you clarify what you mean by I agree with Philip and another anon that 'not French benefits' modifies the direct object, appositively?

Hello rvw. Mind you: that was what I was thinking, TENTATIVELY.

I guess you don't like the word 'modifies' here. Right?

I just don't see how not French benefits can be an appositive of fringe benefits.