To me, "else" shows the path for using comparison that the thing mentioned is sole and there is nothing else can fit, apart from it. I've been thinking and revising some books and COCA and I've concluded that "nothing" implies "impossibility and non-existence" at full throttle. Nevertheless, little thought has stirred up and I went on searching. It's turned out to change almost nothing. I will provide you with examples I have found.

Everything I stumble upon with a connection to "nothing" appears to be used for gaining a rough and only purpose which is to show that there is no event, thing or anything else in the world that can exist considering the context given.

The beginning chorus experience provides children with an exciting introduction to musical performance like nothing else can. [Only chorus experience can reach such a position.]

Nothing can convince her that his powers are anything short of supernatural.

Nothing can take that away, nor can it reduce what Helton experienced this year.

Nothing can destroy a powerful innovation more than putting it into practice without proper instructor and student preparation.

 In addition, supporters asserted that state lotteries would raise money to finance public education,  and surely nothing can be more important in this country than every person receiving more education regardless of desire or ability.

khoff

“

 

This is the best, and nothing can replace it.  (Not even this best thing is good enough to replace itself.  -- Not logical.)  

This is the best, and nothing else can replace it.  (Things other than "it" are not good enough to replace "it". -- More logical.)

”

I suppose the replacing itself implies kind of substitution. In the second sentence else just adds that two thing inerchangeable can exist and more likely they do exist.  

That's my small contribution. I hope it will be of help, friends.

khoff

“

 How about a bake-off?

”

You'll only get a half-baked solution from me.

Grammar Geek

“Since you and I are on the same side, I choose "knit-off" and my job is to hold the yarn.”

I'll just keep the thread from unravelling...

khoff

“ How about a bake-off?”

CJ

khoff

“My point is that you don't want to imply that the thing can replace itself, because it can't -- unless you are deliberately trying to construct some kind of existential paradox.”

With an emphasis on "replace", we think of replacement as always involving something other than the original thing.  We say that replace cannot be used, by the very meaning of the verb, to refer to cases where a thing replaces itself.  else becomes redundant under this interpretation.    My analysis does not take this point of view.

With an emphasis of "nothing", we think of the literal meaning "There exists no thing such that it can replace X".  (Every thing fails to be a satisfactory replacement.)  But one of the things in the universe is the original thing.  So "nothing can replace X" says that even the original thing can't replace the original thing.  else is required to block the replacement of a thing by itself under this interpretation.  Your analysis does not take this point of view.

Kooyeen seems to think that else is implied when it's omitted anyway, but whether he thinks it is implied by the meaning of replace or by a general principle that else is always implied in such contexts, I cannot determine, though I suspect it's the latter.

______

Absent the word replace we may be in agreement.  I don't know.

This is the best place to hang this picture; nowhere (else?) is better.

I would find the omission of else odd here, but perhaps others think it's fine.  And those that think it's fine without else may divide into 1) those who think it's fine because else is implied anyway (Kooyeen?) and 2) those who think it's fine not because else is implied, but just because of the meanings of other words within the context. (Khoff?)

Anyone need some Tylenol? 

CJ

julielai

“

Let's say, my father gave me a vase. I love the vase very much, but my cat broke it yesterday. The vase is gone. In this case, will the following be correct?

Nothing (that exists) can replace that vase of mine.

Nothing (that exists) can replace it now.

Now, what if I'm selling a product that I think is the best--say, Model 1.234. In this case, will the following be correct?

Nothing else can replace Model 1.234.

Nothing else can replace this one. (Buy it!)

”

There does not exist anything now (not even the vase itself, which is now destroyed) which can replace that thing which was my vase.  (No exception for the vase itself, so else not required.)

There does not exist anything (except Model 1.234 itself) that can replace Model 1.234.  (Here's where Khoff will want to remove else (paraphrased in parentheses), if I understand her argument correctly as based on the meaning of replace.)

CJ