0
Paco2004 Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
How to parse 'but for'
Hello Teachers
One question I'm now stuck by is how to parse rationally the phrase 'but for ~' in a sentence like 'But for the heavy snow, the plane would have taken off'. My English grammar book says that 'but for the heavy snow' can be rephrased as 'if it had not been for the heavy snow'. But this rephrasing also gets me further puzzled. I know the meaning of 'but for the heavy snow' and its alternative 'it were not/had not been for the snow'. As long as I understand them, they mean 'if there were not (had not been) the heavy snow'. However, I cannot get the reason 'but for the heavy snow' or 'if it were not (had not been) for the heavy snow' means so. Is the 'but' in 'but for' a conjunction or a preposition or an adverb? And what does the preposition 'for' connote? Is it like the 'for' in 'for the sake of'? And I am wondering what the pronoun 'it' stands for in the phrase 'if it were not (had not been) for ~'? Is it something like the expletive 'it'? I am totally confused with the grammatical analysis of 'but for ~' and 'if it were not (had not been) for ~'. Any comment will be much appreciated.
paco
One question I'm now stuck by is how to parse rationally the phrase 'but for ~' in a sentence like 'But for the heavy snow, the plane would have taken off'. My English grammar book says that 'but for the heavy snow' can be rephrased as 'if it had not been for the heavy snow'. But this rephrasing also gets me further puzzled. I know the meaning of 'but for the heavy snow' and its alternative 'it were not/had not been for the snow'. As long as I understand them, they mean 'if there were not (had not been) the heavy snow'. However, I cannot get the reason 'but for the heavy snow' or 'if it were not (had not been) for the heavy snow' means so. Is the 'but' in 'but for' a conjunction or a preposition or an adverb? And what does the preposition 'for' connote? Is it like the 'for' in 'for the sake of'? And I am wondering what the pronoun 'it' stands for in the phrase 'if it were not (had not been) for ~'? Is it something like the expletive 'it'? I am totally confused with the grammatical analysis of 'but for ~' and 'if it were not (had not been) for ~'. Any comment will be much appreciated.
paco
Top answer
Hello Paco I would read 'but for' as 'except for'. 'But' derives from Old English 'butan', which originally meant 'outside', 'without', 'except'. ) See you, MrP
- Hello Paco I would read 'but for' as 'except for'.
- 'But' derives from Old English 'butan', which originally meant 'outside', 'without', 'except'.
- ) See you, MrP
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
6 Answers
0
Hello Paco
I would read 'but for' as 'except for'.
'But' derives from Old English 'butan', which originally meant 'outside', 'without', 'except'. (I think its modern use as a conjunction dates only from the 13th century.)
See you,
MrP
I would read 'but for' as 'except for'.
'But' derives from Old English 'butan', which originally meant 'outside', 'without', 'except'. (I think its modern use as a conjunction dates only from the 13th century.)
See you,
MrP
00
Paco,
Like Mr. P., I would say "except for" is the same, generally speaking, as "but for". I would call it a compound preposition, like "on account on", to cite just one example.
"if it were not for" does not yield well to a literal analysis. It is best thought of as an idiom. "it" is a non-referential place holder here.
"If it were not for the patience of the
Like Mr. P., I would say "except for" is the same, generally speaking, as "but for". I would call it a compound preposition, like "on account on", to cite just one example.
"if it were not for" does not yield well to a literal analysis. It is best thought of as an idiom. "it" is a non-referential place holder here.
"If it were not for the patience of the
00
Hello MrP and CJ
Thank you both for the replies. OK, I understand the 'but' in 'but for' is a preposition. Then, what function does the 'for' have? We can say <but him> in 'Everybody but him understood it'. But we can also say <but for him> like in 'But for him, we wouldn't have understood it'. What role does the 'for' have exactly?
paco
Thank you both for the replies. OK, I understand the 'but' in 'but for' is a preposition. Then, what function does the 'for' have? We can say <but him> in 'Everybody but him understood it'. But we can also say <but for him> like in 'But for him, we wouldn't have understood it'. What role does the 'for' have exactly?
paco
00
I plead ignorance!
To me "but for" is a compound which I think of as a single unit -- likewise "except for".
I don't seem to be able to assign a specific, separate role to the component "for".
The closest I could come would be to compare this "for" to the "for" in "For want of a pair of scissors, he tore the package open with his teeth". It has some subtle relationship t
To me "but for" is a compound which I think of as a single unit -- likewise "except for".
I don't seem to be able to assign a specific, separate role to the component "for".
The closest I could come would be to compare this "for" to the "for" in "For want of a pair of scissors, he tore the package open with his teeth". It has some subtle relationship t
00
It has some subtle relationship to causality, I suppose.That certainly tallies with the etymology:
"O.E. for "for, before, on account of."
MrP
00
Hello
I'm coming to feel the 'for' in the 'but for X' is semantically similar to 'before' (= 'in the presence of'). That is, 'but for X' ='without (being in) the presence of X'.
paco
I'm coming to feel the 'for' in the 'but for X' is semantically similar to 'before' (= 'in the presence of'). That is, 'but for X' ='without (being in) the presence of X'.
paco
0
Related Questions