+0
You should be interested not only in things that can benefit you economically but also in broader cultural things.

You should be interested in not only things that can benefit you economically but also broader cultural things.

I think they are correct but which is better to say?

Thanks
LiJ
1 2
Comments  
Only second one sounded correct to me. I don't like the idea of splitting prepositions in such structures. Even when you read, you feel confused, don't you? Or am I alone?Emotion: hmm
Hi LiJ

As Doll said, the following sentence is correct.

You should be interested not only in things that can benefit you economically but also in broader cultural things.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Thanks, Doll and YL.

I took a quick check on google and both are found. A Google search for the second structure in nytimes.com results in four times hits than that for the first.
I think they both are correct but I don't know the difference of feeling.
Just be parallel.

not only in... but also in...

or in not only x but also y

Don't say "in not only x but also in y"
Grammar GeekDon't say "in not only x but also in y"
Hi Barb,
yes, but that's more related to style and "good writing" than grammar and idiomatic English, isn't it? I think native speakers are very likely to use unbalanced structures in everyday speech...
Anyway, I wanted to ask a question about "not only... but also" I've always wanted to ask. Is it possible to merge "not also" with verbs, or is it a separate and fixed idiom that must remain that way? Example:

You should be interested not only in things that can benefit you economically, but also in broader cultural things.
You shouldn't only be interested in things that can benefit you economically, but also (in) broader cultural things.

I think it's possible, but keeping "not only" separate is usually more emphatic.

Thanks. Emotion: smile
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
How in heaven's name can you seperate good style from proper grammar and idiomatic English?

Both (parellel) forms are grammatical.

Your second example would leave me scratching my head on a first read -- am I not supposed to be interested in cultural things? And then I go back and figure out that "but also in" is a shortcut for "but you should also be interested in." It's casual writing and makes your reader work harder than you want him to. (That's also good style - don't make your reader work harder than necessary to understand your meaning.)

You shouldn't be interested in ONLY things that can benefit you economically, but should take an interest in broader, cultural issues as well.
Yes! you are very right.
Grammar GeekHow in heaven's name can you seperate good style from proper grammar and idiomatic English?
Well, I was thinking of something like "Uh, y'know, I think it's, like, weird", which would definitely be idiomatic, but probably not good style if you put it in "good writing".
But I see you were only considering written English...
Grammar Geek It's casual writing and makes your reader work harder than you want him to.
...while I mentioned "spoken English" in my post. No problem. You are a writer, so "good writing" is the first thing you think of, of course. Emotion: wink
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more