|
|
Post by Geoff on Apr 29, 2009 11:08:12 GMT
In the following extract from the description of a piece of electronics for use in model railways, do you think the ' not' is correctly placed? I know the sentence could be recast to eliminate any concern about the sentence construction, but what do you think about the way it has been written? The Block Watcher™ has many uses and applications.
It can not only be used as the basis of signaling systems, but can also be used to indicate occupied blocks or triggers for Stop-On-DCC decoders. I have to admit that the more times I read the sentence the less the ' not' appears to be incorrect; but my first reading made me stumble because I read ' can not' as ' cannot' (I think). |
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Apr 29, 2009 11:42:32 GMT
I think it's fine, Geoff. I take your point about "can not" and "cannot", but there is nothing wrong with the construction of the sentence per se.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Apr 29, 2009 11:44:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Vadim on Apr 29, 2009 12:36:06 GMT
Reads fine to me, Geoff.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Apr 29, 2009 15:23:33 GMT
Could be shortened to:
putting the but and also together--does that help?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Apr 29, 2009 22:06:22 GMT
If you want to improve it, Geoff, it would be better as:
It can be used not only as the basis of signalling systems, but also to indicate occupied blocks or triggers for Stop-On-DCC decoders.
Stylistically it's better to arrange the "not only ... but also" to avoid the repetition of unnecessary words, while ensuring that what comes immediately after each half of the construction is grammatically equivalent.
Sue
|
|
|
|
Post by Geoff on Apr 29, 2009 23:51:17 GMT
When I read the sentence this morning, I can see nothing wrong with it. Interesting.
Sue,
That's how I would have recast it last night.
I had to read it a few times last night to make sure that both parts were grammatically the same.
|
|
