Results 1 to 3 of 3
    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • Tagalog
      • Home Country:
      • Philippines
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines

    • Join Date: Jun 2005
    • Posts: 35
    #1

    old english?

    good day everyone!

    i want to know the grammar rule behind this sentence:

    " I not only lost all my money --I also lost my passport."

    WHy not just
    " I did not only lose my money--i also lost my passport." ?

    Where can i possibly find more examples like the fomer?
    is it safe to say that such sentence can be considered old english?


    thank you!
    more power! :0

    • Member Info
      • Native Language:
      • English
      • Home Country:
      • Canada
      • Current Location:
      • Canada

    • Join Date: Sep 2005
    • Posts: 92
    #2

    Re: old english?

    Well, in my opinion, both your examples are acceptable in English:

    I not only lost all my money - I also lost my passport.

    I did not only lose my money - I also lost my passport.

    The latter example with "did+lose" simply seems more emphatic though I'd suggest the following variation might be more common:

    I didn't just lose [all] my money - I lost my passport too!

    What do you mean by "old English"? I hope not "Old English," the ancestor of modern English. Old English is an entirely separate language from modern English. It's like comparing Late Latin to Portuguese.

    So perhaps you meant old-fashioned English?

    All of the examples above are in perfectly acceptable modern English.

  1. Casiopea's Avatar

    • Join Date: Sep 2003
    • Posts: 12,970
    #3

    Re: old english?

    Quote Originally Posted by lisa***
    I want to know the grammar rule behind this sentence:

    "I not only lost all my money --I also lost my passport."
    In addition, "not only . . . also" is a correlative pair; e.g., either . . . or / neither . . . nor. Notice that "not only" and "also" share the same structural position:

    I not only lost . . . , I also lost . . . .

    "not only" and "lost" function as adverbs. Adverbs, as you know, have freedom to move around the sentence, like this,

    Not only did I lose . . . , I also lost . . . .
    Not only did I lose this, I lost that, also.

    Notice "did". It carries past tense; that's why "lost" changes to its base form "lose". "did" is inserted because "not" needs a verb to modify. If we don't move "not" away from its verb, then "did" in not required. The following "did" is redundant:

    I did not only lose . . . , I also lost . . . .

    "not" modifies the verb "lose", so "did" isn't required. It's added for emphasis, as JJM mentions.

Similar Threads

  1. How to learn English well
    By K.Margaret in forum General Language Discussions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 20-Sep-2009, 13:40
  2. Help
    By zhangjin in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 29-Mar-2008, 20:47
  3. improving the use of english as a foreign language
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 15-Sep-2007, 09:08
  4. [feeling] Annoying English?!
    By Wai_Wai in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 13-Nov-2006, 09:59

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •