but for

[ademoglu]

Hi,

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/but_1#but_1__157

But for: if it were not for

- He would have played but for a knee injury.

I would like to ask whether 'but for' is an alternative to both 'if it had not been for ' and 'it it were not for' or just 'if it were not you'? For example:

- But for you, I wouldn't beat him.
- But for you, I wouldn't have beaten him.

I think both are OK, although the dictionary gives the only alternative - if it were not for.

Thanks.

 

[Roman55]

- But for you, I wouldn't beat him.
- But for you, I wouldn't have beaten him.

I am not a teacher.

It is very unnatural to use 'but for' followed by a negative statement like this.

 

[ademoglu]

Thanks for the answer. What about these ones:

- But for you, I would beat him.
- But for you, I would have beaten him.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

The second one would make sense if you didn't beat him and it was in some way due to the person you're speaking to.

The first is not impossible, but can you be sure that you won't beat him?

 

[ademoglu]

I got it. Thank you but could you please tell me why you said that ''It is very unnatural to use 'but for' followed by a negative statement like this''? Can't we use that structure in a negative sentence?

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.

It's just unnatural, (not necessarily logically impossible).

The idea is that something would have happened, but for something else. It didn't happen because of something else.
We don't tend to say something won't/wouldn't happen, but for something else.

 

[ademoglu]

I have found this: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/but-for-you.2160725/

1. But for you I wouldn't be where I am now.
2. But for her staggering determination we wouldn't have won the game.

I really feel confused.

 

[Roman55]

I am not a teacher.


A bit of confusion creeping in here. Sorry about that.


But for you, I wouldn't beat him. This is not good, in my opinion. It seems to be saying that I would beat him (which is not a verifiable fact) if you weren't involved in some way.
But for her staggering determination we wouldn't have won the game. This is OK. It means that we did win thanks to her staggering determination.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****


Hello, Ademoglu:

I am definitely not trying to answer your question.

I found some information from my favorite scholar, George Curme, that really fascinated me. May I share it with you?

1. Professor Curme says that instead of "were it not for" and "had it not been for," many people use "but for," "except for," save for," and -- in older English -- "only for."

2, Professor Curme says that those expressions ("but for," etc.) are now considered compound prepositions.

a. He tells us that actually, they are elliptical.

i. "But for the thick trees the bitter wind would blow the house to pieces." = "But [it were] for the thick trees ...."

3. Here are some of his examples:

a. "We should have died but / except / save for him."

b. "We should have died only / but for him."

c. [an example from English written in the year 1811] "Only for my tea, I should have had the headache."



Credit for this information goes to George Oliver Curme, A Grammar of the English Language (1931), Volume II, page 332.

 

[Eckaslike]

I have found this: http://forum.wordreference.com/threads/but-for-you.2160725/

1. But for you I wouldn't be where I am now.
2. But for her staggering determination we wouldn't have won the game.

I really feel confused.

Do not feel confused. I think Roman55 is correct, "But for" is not usually followed by a negative statement. I think I've found out why.

I followed the link you posted and the two sentences above have been composed by someone from Poland.

I think the reason they don't work with a negative ending is because traditionally, English avoids double-negatives. http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-double-negatives.html

The reason for this is they are harder to understand, many would argue that they don't make sense, and it is usually far clearer to write such a sentence as a positive one, because essentially the two negatives cancel each other out anyway. "I haven't got no beer" could basically mean "I haven't got zero beer", so if you haven't got zero beer then you must have some beer! So, you would actually say "I haven't got a beer".

Looking at the two examples above in this light:
1. "But for you I wouldn't be where I am now." = "If it were not for you I wouldn't be where I am now". You would be more likely to say something like "It's because of you that I am where I am today".

2. "But for her staggering determination we wouldn't have won the game." = "If it were not for her staggering determination we wouldn't have won the game". We would be more likely to say "We won the game due to her staggering determination".

Does that help at all? I agree with Roman55 that the negatives feel very unnatural, and I think that is the reason why.

 

[TheParser]

***** NOT A TEACHER *****

Hello, Ademoglu:

Can a negative clause follow "but for" in modern English? I will keep my opinion to myself, but I found the thoughtful comments from Roman and Eckaslike very helpful.

I did, however, discover that in older English, native speakers seemed to find the negative perfectly acceptable. I am sharing this information so that you can have a deeper appreciation of the development of English grammar over the years.

Here are some examples from a book published in 1876:

1. "The means of your deliverance, Which but for Hastings' death, I had not gain'd."

2. "The room was so very much crowded, that, but for the uncommon assiduity [personal attention] of Sir Clement, we should not have been able to procure a box."

3. "The science of Philology could scarcely [a negative adverb] have been possible but for the fortunate discovery of Sanskrit in [the] last century."


Credit for this information goes to Gerhard E. Penning, A History of the Reflective Pronouns in the English Language. (accessed through Google "books")

 

[Eckaslike]

Hello TheParser, Ademoglu and everyone else reading this thread,

You are right in what you say, TheParser, that double negatives were acceptable in the past, which is why usage survives in many dialects and spoken forms of BrE. It may still be used by some people in very informal settings, such as down the pub, or when singing songs. However, I have a feeling the rule about double negatives was probably encouraged as the populace became more literate, to enable them to write clearer sentences. I also think it was something that Victorian and Edwardian teachers were very keen on. I remember having the rule hammered in to me at school and that would have been in the 1970s. The main difference is probably between colloquial speech and writing which is usually more formal, especially when you are learning. But even when speaking, it used to be knocked out of us.

TheParser can probably confirm this, or not, but I think that AmE is possibly going to be much more relaxed about this whole subject. So, perhaps in AmE, or certain forms of it, it may be perfectly acceptable to use double negatives. My general feeling is that it is still frowned upon in BrE in most situations. However, we are probably becoming more used to it creeping back into informal usage, possibly because "ordinary" people with regional accents and dialects appear on the television and radio now. In the past announcers and presenters would only use received pronunciation, and would have never dreamed of using a double negative while on air.

I found this in one of the online dictionaries, which sums all this up quite nicely. It also cites one situation, which is very subtle, where it is still considered acceptable to use it in more formal BrE.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/double-negatives

 

[MikeNewYork]

I don't consider Parser's examples to be double negatives. In all three cases, "but for" means "except for". It is perfectly normal.

 

[Eckaslike]

I think the problem might be that our very fussy Victorian BrE forebears would have viewed "except for" in the same way as "but for". They would have simply regarded it as a negative concept dressed up in positive words.

However, I agree that those sentences TheParser found are clear and do make sense, so it may be for that reason they slipped through editor's net.

I imagine the rule would have taken many years to become generally accepted. Apparently in 1762, Robert Lowth first put forward the idea that a double negative creates a positive, so I expect it would have taken a long time to change centuries of people using double negatives naturally. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative

That link also mentions that double negatives are often associated with "Southern American English" and "African American English", as well regional British accents.

If I think of my own home village, in deepest darkest Somerset, a natural conversation like this might be heard:

A. Where were you last night then Bob?
B. I wen' out to the pictures.
A. An' where did you go John?
C. I didn't go nowhere las' night. Meh missus wanted me to stay in an' fix a light for 'er.