+0
Except can function as a conjunction, with the meaning of 'but'

Is it wrong to include 'of'? Please explain.

'with the meaning of but' = prepositional phrase modifying 'conjunction' or 'except'?

Thank you.
Comments  
English 1b3Is it wrong to include 'of'? Please explain.
It's OK. It means "with the meaning same meaning as 'but' has".
English 1b3'with the meaning of but' = prepositional phrase modifying 'conjunction' or 'except'?
If there was no comma then it would (probably) modify "conjunction". With the comma, it modifies the whole fact of "except" functioning as a conjunction.
Mr WordyIt means "with the meaning same meaning as 'but' has".

Did you repeat yourself here, or am I not understanding the meaning 'of' conveys?
Mr WordyWith the comma, it modifies the whole fact of "except" functioning as a conjunction.
Oh, right, so is it functioning adverbially, answering the question 'how' it can function?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
English 1b3Did you repeat yourself here, or am I not understanding the meaning 'of' conveys?
Sorry, finger trouble. I meant to say "with the same meaning as 'but' has".
English 1b3
Oh, right, so is it functioning adverbially, answering the question 'how' it can function?

I suppose so, but in practice I do not bother to differentiate between all these things. To me it simultaneously refers to "except", "function" and "conjunction". There is no need to differentiate because it has no effect on the meaning.
Mr WordyI meant to say "with the same meaning as 'but' has".

Is it OK to have a comparative clause as part of the object of a preposition?

'with' seems to quite commonly function differently from other prepositions. Do you know much about these uses?

e.g. They have expanded their operations, with several wineries based in America.

It is not just followed by an object as most prepositions are.
English 1b3
Mr WordyI meant to say "with the same meaning as 'but' has".

Is it OK to have a comparative clause as part of the object of a preposition?

What I wrote is perhaps not the most elegant English. I wrote it that way just in an attempt not to simply repeat, or almost repeat, the original wording.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
English 1b3
e.g. They have expanded their operations, with several wineries based in America.

It is not just followed by an object as most prepositions are.

"with" can be used loosely like this to connect different ideas, without explaining in a very grammaticaly precise way exactly what the connection is. This particular example isn't too bad, but sometimes such use can feel sloppy.

Hi, Mr Wordy

Going back to the first question, about the meaning of 'with' in the sentence at hand, I found a meaning of 'with' that I think works here, and that may make you think 'with' in fact does modify 'conjunction' not the whole sentence:

with: having attached to it, carrying (something, in this case a meaning)



Or read 4a and 8b in the link above.
There's no problem with "with" having a suitable meaning that can allow it to modify "conjunction". The following are all logically possible:

1. Except can function as a [conjunction with the meaning of 'but'].

2. Except can [function with the meaning of 'but'] as a conjunction.

3. [Except with the meaning of 'but'] can function as a conjunction.

The question is: Which of these does your original sentence, "Except can function as a conjunction, with the meaning of 'but'." correspond to? To me, this seems technically ambiguous. Any or all are possible. But because it makes no difference to the meaning, there's no need to bother about the ambiguity or try to resolve it.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.