[Grammar] It is not that

[KJOU]

<Source>

I have two question for this text.

You might be thinking that sharing is not easy. If so, you are not alone. May people say, "It's not that I don't want to donate, but I simply can't afford to!"

1 Would it be OK if I interpret the sentence as the following.

"It's not because I don't want to donate, but (because) I simply can't afford to!"

2 If the Dead Sea gave the river back what it had received, it would form as lively as a lake as the one to its north.

Is this subjunctive, I mean "unreal conditional sentence." The part which makes me confused is " what it had received."
Other things such as "gave," or " would form" look unreal, but to me, this part looks real.

I'd appreciate your explanation.

 

[jutfrank]

1) Interpret the sentence like this:

It's not that I don't want to donate, but that I simply can't afford to.

The speaker is saying two things. The first thing is not true and the second thing is true.

P1: I don't want to donate =[This is not true]
P2: I can't afford to donate =[This is true]

2) Yes, this is an unreal conditional. The past perfect form is meant to show that receiving comes before giving back.

 

[KJOU]

Then, do you mean the sentence can not be paraphrased into "because clause"?

 

[jutfrank]

No, I don't mean to say that it's wrong to paraphrase with because, but I wouldn't.

 

[KJOU]

Thanks for your reply. Could you let me know why you wouldn't?

As a foreign learner, I would like to know your opinion if my asking is not rude.

Thank you.

 

[jutfrank]

Don't worry about why I wouldn't, KJOU.

You've understood the text well enough. It's okay to use because since the person speaking is providing a reason for not donating.

 

[5jj]

If the Dead Sea gave the river back what it had received, it would form as lively as a lake as the one to its north.

I don't agree that this is necessarily an unreal conditional. For me, it could be a hypothetical conditional.

If the speaker is think of present/general time, then it is unreal - the Dead Sea does not give back what it has received.

However, if the speaker is thinking of future time, then it is merely hypothetical. - for the Dead Sea to give back in the future what it has received may be highly unlikely, but that possibility is not excluded.

 

[KJOU]

However, if the speaker is thinking of future time, then it is merely hypothetical. - for the Dead Sea to give back in the future what it has received may be highly unlikely, but that possibility is not excluded.

Thanks a lot for your confirmation. I was not 100 sure about what you explain.

 

[emsr2d2]

Thanks a lot for your confirmation. I was not 100% sure [STRIKE] about what you explain[/STRIKE] that I understood your explanation.

emsr2d2

 

[slevlife]

Could you let me know why you wouldn't?

Like jutfrank, I also wouldn't use because, even though it doesn't change the meaning. Two reasons come to mind:

1. The sentence as originally written feels idiomatic and concise. Using because would hurt this somewhat, especially if you used it in both clauses. "It's not that + [subject] + [negative statement], but [actual reason]" is a common expression.

2. Subjective: I think using because might put a greater feeling of earnestness into the explanation/justification, which might not be appropriate because the statement might just be a soft rejection. It's probably not entirely true that the speaker wants to donate, nor that they literally can't afford to. Notice their use of "It's not that I don't want to," rather than "I want to" (they never actually confirm that they want to). What they're thinking is possibly more like "I wouldn't mind donating if circumstances were different, but money is tight so I don't think it's the right cause to support or the best use of my money." They are possibly trying to avoid stating this truer meaning, while not overdoing it.