Hi folks,

Regarding the example 1b which sounds bad...,
>
> > 1-a. You carried the luggage yourself, which was not necessary.
> > 1-b. You carried the luggage yourself, as was not necessary.
> > 2-a. He is a foreigner, which is evident from his accent.
> > 2-b. He is a foreigner, as is evident from his accent.
> > 3-a. Her feet were bare, which was the custom in those days.
> > 3-b. Her feet were bare, as was the custom in those days.
> > 4-a. She has married again, which was natural.
> > 4-b. She has married again, as was natural.
> > 5-a. Tom was not at home, which is often the case with him.
> > 5-b. Tom was not at home, as is often the case with him.



I note a difference between example 1, and the others which may be relevant.

Note that the first which/as clauses have "not" inside them. None of
the others do. Indeed, if we take out the "not", 1b becomes just fine:

1b: You carried the luggage yourself, as was necessary.

I THINK that's fine.

So, something is going on with the "not" element. Question is what.

Notice,

2a. He is a foreigner, which is not evident from his accent.
2b. He is a foreigner, as is not evident from his accent.

While 2a may sound a nudge odd, 2b is flat out bad, I think. What I
SUSPECT is happening is that "as" functions to join clauses which are
alike in meaning in some significant way. That is, like "and", "as"
signals commonality or affirmation. But when you bring in a "not", it
seems that there is a clash with "as".

Notice,
2c. He is happy, as we can all see.
2d. He is happy, as we can not all see.

The contrast of final clause with first clause becomes fine if we put
an explicit contrast word in.

2e. He is a foreigner, although it's not evident from his accent.

There's surely more to the story, as seen in 2f. Here, there is no
explicit connecting word (e.g. which, although, as), and the "not" is
perfectly good.

2f. He is a foreigner, a fact not evident from his accent.

So, I think that the problem has arisen in the original sentence 1b
because "as" signals a "continuation" in some sense of the meaning of
the first clause, but then the "not" signals a clash.

so, whatch'all think?

cheers!

rebecca







^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Rebecca S. Wheeler, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of English
Department of English                   phone:  (757) 594-8891
50 Shoe Lane                            fax:    (757) 594-8870
Christopher Newport University          email:  [log in to unmask]
Newport News, VA 23606-2998

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^