+1
How would you analyse this one:

We get fringe benefits not French benefits.

Is 'not French benefits' a second clause, or is it just a part of a direct object?

Please, you will save my life Emotion: smile
1 2 3 4
Comments  
KatkicaHow would you analyse this one:

We get fringe benefits not French benefits.

Is 'not French benefits' a second clause, or is it just a part of a direct object?

Please, you will save my life Emotion: smile
The addition of a simple comma will make the last part an appositive: We get fringe benefits, not French benefits.
I think the sentence is elliptic for:

We get fringe benefits, but we do not get French benefits.

The adverb not modifies do get, not French. The second clause means We in no way, to no degree get French benefits.

Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Hello
Not to be rude with you, rvw, I'd be inclined to think to the contrary. Shouldn't we take the noun phrase 'fringe benefits not French benefits' as a whole as an direct object..??

Because when we change similar sentence to the past tense and paraphrase,

[1] We ate ten apples not eleven.

[2] We ate ten apples, but we didn't eat eleven apples.

they look different. I'm not so sure, though. How do you think?
Hello rvw again. A better example sentence:

[1] Issinbaeva cleared 5.01 meters not 5.03.

[2] Issinbaeva cleared 5.01 meters, but not 5.03.

(This pair makes what I wanted to say more clear, I hope.)
We get fringe benefits not French benefits.

"benefits" is the direct object of "get". "Not French benefits" is an apposition to "benefits"
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
The trouble I have with viewing the whole phrase fringe benefits not French benefits as one direct object is that not is an adverb and so must modify a verb, an adjective, or another adverb. I think not modifies the implicit verb do get.

I think fringe benefits and French benefits are direct objects, but of different clauses:
-We get fringe benefits.
-[We do not get] French benefits. (We do [not] get is implicit.)

I do not think that not modifies French. If that were the intention, I think the sentence would more likely be worded: We get fringe, non-French benefits.

I would expand your second example, We ate ten apples not eleven:
-We ate ten apples; we did not eat eleven apples.

I agree that the sentences look and feel different. In the first one, the emphasis is clearly on ten versus eleven. In the second sentence, the emphasis is not so clear. To more closely approximate the meaning of the first sentence, one might have to say: We ate ten apples and stopped. No one ate the eleventh apple. So the structure "...X not Y" is a convenient shorthand in which the emphasis is quite clear.

But purely grammatically, I think not modifies an implicit verb in a (mostly) implicit second clause.

I would analyze your other examples in the same way:
-Issinbaeva cleared 5.01 meter not 5.02. --- Issinbaeva cleared 5.01 meters; he did not clear 5.02 meters.
-Issinbaeva cleared 5.01 meters, but not 5.02. --- Issinbaeva cleared 5.01 meters, but he did not clear 5.02 meters.


Philip and Anonymous argue that fringe benefits and not French benefits are appositives; i.e., they name or represent the same thing. But the principal thrust of the sentence is to contrast the two.
Hello rvw. I'm that anon who asked about apples and Issinbaeva. Oh I see you are not so enthuisiastic for the pole vault (in addition the spelling of her name was wrong: Isinbayeva. She broke the world record at Helsinki, at IAAF world championships this year. She is beautiful, by the way..)
http://www.iaaf.org/WCH05/multimedia/search.htmx?srch=Isinbayeva

When she cleared 5.01 meters (at Helsinki), she broke the world record. (She didn't even try 5.03 at Helsinki.)

On September 19, in Yokohama, Japan, she tried 5.03. But this time she couldn't renew her own world record.
..................................................................................................
How about this one?
# Isinbayeva cleared 5.01 meters not 5.00 meters.
..................................................................................................

I agree with Philip and another anon that 'not French benefits' modifies the direct object, appositively. And I also agree with rvw that the principal thrust of the sentence is to contrast the two.

I've been trying to understand this 'not' which emphasizes the contrast. When it is used to emphasizes the contrast, there's no negation of some event. So I think it should be considered as a part of an adjectival phrase of noun. (I'm not so sure, though.)
Rho,

Can you clarify what you mean by I agree with Philip and another anon that 'not French benefits' modifies the direct object, appositively?
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Show more