Can I say "Wood is not stronger than steel."?

Your wrote: Steel is not as strong as wood. It is stronger.

In this kind of  contrast structure,  this sentence posted some doubts in my head and I wonder how many see it that way.  Or am I the only one?

By drawing a parallel to your logic, then  “A roof over your head in Calif does not cost as much as New York, it costs more” is a correct structure in your opinion, is that correct?

If you will, please think about the context of the above sentence :

This first part of the statement essentially says : A dwelling in California costs less than that of N.Y.  but the second part contradicted the first part. I believe adding “only” made the sentence more contrastive and clear.

To bring the contrast between samples subjects, we need adverbs like merely or only to be constructed in the sentence.  i.e. Mary not only can  type as fast as Susan,  she is also faster and more accurate.

In a slightly different flavor, we can spice it a little: "As a secretary, Mary not only is as capable as Susan, she is also more plesant to work with and less error prone.

Kooyeen wrote:

Goodman wrote: “A roof over your head in Calif does not cost as much as New York, it costs more” is a correct structure in your opinion, is that correct? Hi, yes. MM confused me a little when he mentioned a less usual interpretation, which is the interpretation of my example and your example above too. I just wanted to be sure I understood, and I asked. Well, Clive answered in the end, and agreed that structure is ok.  Goodman wrote: This first part of the statement essentially says : A dwelling in California costs less than that of N.Y. No, that's the usual interpretation. But you could look at the literal meaning instead of the usual one, and so it basically says that the price in Cali is not the same as the price in New York. It could be less, it could be more. But when this structure is used with this meaning the stress (and usually intonation too) plays an important role in the sentence.  Goodman wrote: To bring the contrast between samples subjects, we need adverbs like merely or only to be constructed in the sentence.  i.e. If you add "only" that way you are changing the structure, and a second interpretation is not possible anymore. You are negating "only", but not the comparison "as... as..." That's why... Look at this, "not" doesn't negate the clause when you use the structure "not only... but also...": You are not smart. <--- I'm not saying you're smart... I'm saying you're not! You are not only smart, but you also... <--- But here I'm actually saying you're smart... That's all.

Steel is not as strong as wood. It's (actually) stronger. <-- is ok. ---Hate to disgree with you but this is not ok in my book, although Clive deemed it "acceptable", noting that it usually is accompanied by adverbs like "merely/ just/ only".

You wrote: Steel not only is as strong as wood, but it's also stronger. <-- doesn't make sense to me.

Let's change the material a little: Fiberglass is not only stronger than steel, it's also lighter. Now, does this sound better and make more sense to you?

_{Fiberglass Railing suits commercial and residential use ...}

You said:

You are not smart. <--- I'm not saying you're smart... I'm saying you're not! Kooyeen, I have no idea where you are leading me and I am completely lost with you!
You are not only smart, but you also... <--- But here I'm actually saying you're smart...

The bottom line, "X is not only ......but also" is a pretty standard contrastive structure but somehow you are tangled up with it.  

Mary not only can type (as fast as Susan), she is also faster and more accurate. - there is nothing wrong or confusing about it.

Whatever...

Hi,

Fiberglass is not only stronger than steel, it's also lighter. This sounds fine.

Steel is not only as strong as wood. It's (actually) stronger. This sounds odd.

When you use 'not only' like this, you are setting up a 'contrasting pair', even if you don't actually say 'but'. Thus, when you say 'Not only A, (but) B', you are saying that both A and B are applicable. eg both 'stronger than steel' and 'lighter than steel' are applicable 

It sounds odd to say that a thing can be both 'as strong as steel' and 'stronger than steel'. 

Clive

Goodman wrote:

Yes, the content was changed, but the "is not only ....but also" structure remained which was the point of discussion, wasn't it?  As a learner, it's ok to be humble if we don't understand certain aspect of a subject.  Being persistent on one's own misunderstanding doesn't yeild much fruits.

Clive wrote:

Hi, Fiberglass is not only stronger than steel, it's also lighter. This sounds fine. Steel is not only as strong as wood. It's (actually) stronger. This sounds odd. When you use 'not only' like this, you are setting up a 'contrasting pair', even if you don't actually say 'but'. Thus, when you say 'Not only A, (but) B', you are saying that both A and B are applicable. eg both 'stronger than steel' and 'lighter than steel' are applicable  It sounds odd to say that a thing can be both 'as strong as steel' and 'stronger than steel'.  Clive

Exactly my point!