# but nothing...



## raymondaliasapollyon

Hi,

I'd like to know what is omitted between "but" and "nothing to . . ." in the following sentence.

1. Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire.

If you think the omission is something like "but (his degree of success was) nothing to . . .," how do you rule out the following?

2. John invited many friends to Mary's party, but (his effort was) nothing to make her happy.

The elided version is wrong. How does it differ from #1?


----------



## entangledbank

In the first, it's not obvious what 'nothing' is, but your second examples show it can't refer to just the general activity (the success, the effort, etc.). So 'writer' must be implying things he wrote:

Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing really well known.
Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing you'd have read.


----------



## Edinburgher

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> If you think the omission is something like "but (his degree of success was) nothing to . . .,"


The omission, if you can call it that, is "it was".

I have a completely different interpretation from ETB's.
Although I haven't heard the phrase "(it was) nothing to set the Thames on fire" before, I take it to have a meaning similar to the more familiar  "(it was) nothing to write home about".  The idea is that it was not spectacular enough to be worth mentioning.
The "it" in this case is his living, i.e. the amount of money he was earning by writing.  He was making a modest living.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> how do you rule out the following?
> 2. John invited many friends to Mary's party, but (his effort was) nothing to make her happy.


I rule it out independently of (1).  "His effort was nothing to make her happy" doesn't work for me at all.  I presume what you want it to mean is that his effort was insufficient to make her happy. "Nothing" doesn't work as a substitute for "insufficient". So the elided version is wrong because the unelided version is wrong.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

How about (the elided and the non-elided versions of) the following?

John invited many friends to Mary's party, but (his effort was) nothing useful.


----------



## Edinburgher

Again, "nothing" doesn't work there for me.  In fact, it's worse than the original.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The newer version doesn't have the problem of the original #2, as "nothing" does not mean "insufficient."
Still, it's bad. There must be a reason out there.


----------



## Edinburgher

The trouble is that "His effort was nothing useful" is not idiomatic.

Your intended meaning seems to be that John's efforts (in inviting many friends) did not succeed in making Mary happy.  This doesn't rule out an "insufficient" meaning (perhaps if he'd invited even more friends (or better friends) she would have been happy), but it's more likely that Mary was simply not in a party mood.  You could perhaps say that his efforts were "to no avail".  Then the elision would work.


----------



## kentix

Edinburgher said:


> You could perhaps say that his efforts were "to no avail". Then the elision would work.






raymondaliasapollyon said:


> John invited many friends to Mary's party, but (his effort was) nothing useful.


One additional problem here is there is no explanation of what usefulness was intended. Why did he think it would be useful?

So even to use Edinburgher's suggestion, you need to introduce a reason.

_John invited many friends to Mary's party in an attempt to cheer her up, but his efforts were to no avail. _(They didn't have the desired effect).


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

How about (the elided and non-elided versions of) the following?

He delivered a performance, but (it was) nothing exciting.
He invited a few friends but (it was) nothing special.


----------



## Edinburgher

_He delivered a performance, but (it was) nothing exciting_.  This is okay both with and without "it was".
_He invited a few friends but (it was) nothing special_.  This does not work out of context, because we don't know what "it" is.
If you wrote "He threw a small party and invited a few friends, but it was nothing special", then "it" would clearly mean the party.  That would be OK, but omitting "it was" would make it sound odd, unless you also omit "but" and make "Nothing special" a separate reduced sentence:
"He threw a small party and invited a few friends.  Nothing special."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I'm trying to figure out when the elliptical form "but nothing . . ." can be used.

1. In "He invited a few friends but it was nothing special," could "it" refer to the act of invitation?

2.  In "He threw a small party and invited a few friends, but it was nothing special,"  could "it" ambiguously refer either to the party or to the act of invitation?

3. Are you suggesting that the elliptical form (without "it was") can be used only when the "it' of the non-elliptical version has unambiguous reference?


----------



## Edinburgher

1. I very much doubt it.
2. For me it unambiguously refers to the party.
3. No, that was not my intention.  In the second example in #10, we really have the opposite of ambiguity.  It is not the case that "it" can refer to one of several things and we don't know which, but that there is nothing it can refer to.
I fear your core question is in any case of limited applicability, because I think "but nothing special" would more typically occur in contexts where there has not been an ellipsis of "it was", for example:

Businessman to secretary: "I'd like you to book me into a hotel, but nothing luxurious."  There can be no "it was" here.  He simply wants to go to an ordinary hotel and not waste money on luxuries that he will have no time to enjoy, because he'll be busy with meetings.  Can you invent an expanded version of this "but nothing luxurious", which ellipsis would turn back into it?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

When it comes to ellipsis-based analysis, I have two theories in mind:

1. Omission of "it was, is, .etc.";

2. Omission of a subject and predicate identical to those of the preceding clause.

"He delivered a performance, but nothing exciting" could be expanded into "He delivered a performance, but (he delivered) nothing exciting."

 "I'd like you to book me into a hotel, but nothing luxurious"  could be expanded into "I'd like you to book me into a hotel, but (I'd like you to book me into) nothing luxurious."

Method #2 seems more standard. Some people think my sentence #1, the one involving Phil, is not really natural. Are there any examples that definitively employ method #1 and sound perfectly natural?


----------



## Edinburgher

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "I'd like you to book me into a hotel, but nothing luxurious" could be expanded into "I'd like you to book me into a hotel, but (I'd like you to book me into) nothing luxurious."


I think part of the problem is that that would be an unnatural expansion.  More  likely would be "but (I'd like that hotel to be) nothing luxurious".  We could even expand the word "nothing": " but I do*n't* want it (the hotel) to be *anything* luxurious".


> Are there any examples that definitively employ method #1 and sound perfectly natural?


Well, I don't know about "definitely" (or "perfectly natural", for that matter), but if we take my hotel example and put it in the past, we might get:
"I stayed in a hotel, but nothing luxurious."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

The expansion seems unnatural if only because it's verbose, but it captures the semantic relation between "nothing special, etc." and the preceding clause. From the perspective of a constrained theory of omission, it's better for the elided part to be retrieved from the preceding clause than just conjured up from nowhere. Is it accidental that those who find the Phil sentence unnatural favor sentences where the omitted part can be retrieved from the preceding clause?

To find support for method #1, we need an example to which method #2 cannot apply.  "I stayed in a hotel, but nothing luxurious" is not suitable because "nothing luxurious" could have the elided information retrieved from "I stayed in."

The "invited" example was my attempt to support method #1.


----------



## Edinburgher

Perhaps the answer, then, is that method 1 is unsupportable.   

But I don't quite understand what you are trying to say with the following.  Can you explain?


> because "nothing luxurious" could have the elided information retrieved from "I stayed in."


----------



## shazbok

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> When it comes to ellipsis-based analysis, I have two theories in mind:
> 
> 1. Omission of "it was, is, .etc.";
> 
> 2. Omission of a subject and predicate identical to those of the preceding clause.
> 
> "He delivered a performance, but nothing exciting" could be expanded into "He delivered a performance, but (he delivered) nothing exciting."
> 
> "I'd like you to book me into a hotel, but nothing luxurious"  could be expanded into "I'd like you to book me into a hotel, but (I'd like you to book me into) nothing luxurious."
> 
> Method #2 seems more standard. Some people think my sentence #1, the one involving Phil, is not really natural. Are there any examples that definitively employ method #1 and sound perfectly natural?



1. Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire. : See, I think you're trying to make 'nothing' do more heavy-lifting here than it's built to do. 

The most natural way I can think of using 'nothing special' or variants of the 'nothing [something impressive]' construction is to refer to something really *basic *- a hat I just bought, a meal, a book. Tends to be a concrete object - though I haven't thought about this much so could well be exceptions.

With your phrase, there is the issue, already mentioned, about whether the 'nothing...' refers to the 'living' - i.e. how much MONEY he is making, or is it being used to imply he's a mediocre writer/poorly received critically/[some variant of 'this guy is professionally meh'] - but even IF this ambiguity were eliminated - you still wouldn't use 'nothing' to refer to a concept as non-hat/book/meal like as this - you're trying to get away with dismissing too much potential information.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Edinburgher said:


> Perhaps the answer, then, is that method 1 is unsupportable.
> 
> But I don't quite understand what you are trying to say with the following.  Can you explain?



"I stayed in a hotel, but nothing luxurious"  can be similarly be expanded into "I stayed in a hotel, but (I stayed in) nothing luxurious"

Similar ellipsis:

He was doing okay, but not spectacularly well. ->  He was doing okay, but (he was) not (doing) spectacularly well.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

shazbok said:


> 1. Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire. : See, I think you're trying to make 'nothing' do more heavy-lifting here than it's built to do.
> 
> The most natural way I can think of using 'nothing special' or variants of the 'nothing [something impressive]' construction is to refer to something really *basic *- a hat I just bought, a meal, a book. Tends to be a concrete object - though I haven't thought about this much so could well be exceptions.
> 
> With your phrase, there is the issue, already mentioned, about whether the 'nothing...' refers to the 'living' - i.e. how much MONEY he is making, or is it being used to imply he's a mediocre writer/poorly received critically/[some variant of 'this guy is professionally meh'] - but even IF this ambiguity were eliminated - you still wouldn't use 'nothing' to refer to a concept as non-hat/book/meal like as this - you're trying to get away with dismissing too much potential information.



Do you agree the Phil sentence does not sound very natural?

It's taken from the Longman Dictionary.
set the Thames on fire | meaning of set the Thames on fire in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English | LDOCE

This is not the first time that Longman has supplied a less-than-perfect example sentence.


----------



## shazbok

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do you agree the Phil sentence does not sound very natural?
> 
> It's taken from the Longman Dictionary.
> set the Thames on fire | meaning of set the Thames on fire in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English | LDOCE
> 
> This is not the first time that Longman has supplied a less-than-perfect example sentence.


Wouldn't necessarily say it was unnatural...I just don't 'like' it, I think it's imprecise and a 'bad choice', if you like. But if this was cited as a dictionary example then I must just be reacting to it on a stylistic level. Some other English-speaking person might think it was just fine.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "I stayed in a hotel, but nothing luxurious" can be similarly be expanded into "I stayed in a hotel, but (I stayed in) nothing luxurious"


I don't think of it like this at all.

I read it as 'I stayed in a hotel, but (it was) nothing luxurious.'

But having said that, it sounds odd with 'but'. 'I stayed in a hotel, nothing luxurious' sounds far more natural to me.


----------



## Edinburgher

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "I stayed in a hotel, but nothing luxurious" can be similarly be expanded into "I stayed in a hotel, but (I stayed in) nothing luxurious"


I see what you mean now, thanks.  No, I don't buy that as a feasible expansion.  Your "similar" example with "doing okay", on the other hand, *is* feasible, so it is evidently not similar enough. 


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do you agree the Phil sentence does not sound very natural?


It is not too bad, but it does suffer from the problem of ambiguity: we don't know whether it means that his writing was not very good (see #2) or (as I interpreted it) that he was not making a very good living.


> This is not the first time that Longman has supplied a less-than-perfect example sentence.


Let's see if we can find a better example.  We don't need to look far: the Baronet will never set the Thames on fire


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> I don't think of it like this at all.
> 
> I read it as 'I stayed in a hotel, but (it was) nothing luxurious.'
> 
> But having said that, it sounds odd with 'but'. 'I stayed in a hotel, nothing luxurious' sounds far more natural to me.



Treating such sentences as omitting "it was" is common among native speakers. However, this approach cannot rule out sentences such as " "He threw a small party and invited a few friends, but nothing special."  Arguably, "it (= the party) was" is implied, but the elliptical form is still bad.

Does "She stumbled and spilled the milk all over the floor, but nothing funny" sound okay?
Compare it with "She stumbled and spilled the milk all over the floor, but it was nothing funny."




Edinburgher said:


> I see what you mean now, thanks. No, I don't buy that as a feasible expansion. Your "similar" example with "doing okay", on the other hand, *is* feasible, so it is evidently not similar enough.



Any arguments against it?

"He delivered a performance, but nothing exciting" has a similar expansion.




Edinburgher said:


> It is not too bad, but it does suffer from the problem of ambiguity: we don't know whether it means that his writing was not very good (see #2) or (as I interpreted it) that he was not making a very good living.



The proposed antecedent "his writing" is not in the sentence to begin with.
If this implied antecedent can render "it was" acceptable, one will wonder why we cannot take similar steps in "He invited some friends, but nothing exciting, special, etc." and treat an implied "the party was" as if it were there.




Edinburgher said:


> Let's see if we can find a better example.  We don't need to look far: the Baronet will never set the Thames on fire



Other than the idiom, I don't see any relevance of that thread to the present one.


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Does "She stumbled and spilled the milk all over the floor, but nothing funny" sound okay?


No.


raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "She stumbled and spilled the milk all over the floor, but it was nothing funny."


This sounds wrong too. We'd say ' . . . but it _wasn't _funny.'

I think you may again be expecting English to be consistent and logical. Some words in one sentence or construction may not have the same meaning or implication when transferred to another sentence.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> No.
> 
> This sounds wrong too. We'd say ' . . . but it _wasn't _funny.'
> 
> I think you may again be expecting English to be consistent and logical. Some words in one sentence or construction may not have the same meaning or implication when transferred to another sentence.



How about "She stumbled and spilled the milk all over the floor, but it was nothing serious"? vs. "She stumbled and spilled the milk all over the floor, but nothing serious"?


----------



## kentix

None of them really sound like real life. Before you even say it, people already know spilling milk on the floor is not serious, so the use of serious in any way sounds incongruous.

She stumbled and spilled the milk all over the floor, but it was nothing serious. 
She stumbled and spilled the milk all over the floor, but nothing serious. 

She stumbled and spilled the milk all over the floor, but there was nothing funny about it. (This would only be said if the idea of her spilling things was usually thought to be funny.)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

How about "He was punched in the stomach, but nothing serious" vs. "He was punched in the stomach, but it was nothing serious"?


----------



## shazbok

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> How about "He was punched in the stomach, but nothing serious" vs. "He was punched in the stomach, but it was nothing serious"?


The first one is wrong and the second one is OK. In the first one, I am expecting another word or phrase after 'serious' - e.g. '...serious came of it.' although that itself would be a weird way of phrasing what you mean to convey.


----------



## Edinburgher

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Any arguments against it?


 Only that --intuitively-- it is not idiomatic.  Have we not yet convinced you that logic is often no help when trying to work out what makes English tick?


> "He delivered a performance, but nothing exciting" has a similar expansion.


But an ambiguous one. It could be "but he delivered nothing exciting".
In any case, the short form doesn't sound all that natural.


> The proposed antecedent "his writing" is not in the sentence to begin with.


 That's why I did not come to the same conclusion as in #2.  


> If this implied antecedent can render "it was" acceptable, one will wonder why we cannot take similar steps in "He invited some friends, but nothing exciting, special, etc." and treat an implied "the party was" as if it were there.


 Well, we already have an explicit antecedent "a living" that also renders "it was" acceptable, so there is no need to go searching for an implied antecedent.  Also, you are doing something different here.  You are not implying an antecedent for the "it" in a putative "it was", you are implying a replacement for it.


> Other than the idiom, I don't see any relevance of that thread to the present one.


Indeed.  I was only addressing your complaint of Longman picking a less than ideal example of the idiom being used, so I thought I'd find a better example.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

shazbok said:


> The first one is wrong and the second one is OK. In the first one, I am expecting another word or phrase after 'serious' - e.g. '...serious came of it.' although that itself would be a weird way of phrasing what you mean to convey.



What does the "it" in the second one refer to?




Edinburgher said:


> Only that --intuitively-- it is not idiomatic.  Have we not yet convinced you that logic is often no help when trying to work out what makes English tick?
> But an ambiguous one. It could be "but he delivered nothing exciting".



Could you pin down what's unidiomatic, and explain why it's unidiomatic, if possible?

Learners should strive to find all that is logical about a language, i.e., the system of rules regulating its use. Rejecting regularity is only the last resort.



Edinburgher said:


> In any case, the short form doesn't sound all that natural.



You mean "He delivered a performance, but nothing exciting" does not sound natural? I'd like to know which part you find unnatural, and how it differs from sentences with "but nothing . . ." you find natural.




Edinburgher said:


> That's why I did not come to the same conclusion as in #2.



I was talking about why the Phil sentence is not ambiguous; the other reading, the one involving "his writing," would depend on something not in the sentence.



Edinburgher said:


> Well, we already have an explicit antecedent "a living" that also renders "it was" acceptable, so there is no need to go searching for an implied antecedent.  Also, you are doing something different here.  You are not implying an antecedent for the "it" in a putative "it was", you are implying a replacement for it.



"In John invited many friends to Mary's party, but (it was) nothing special," we already have an explicit antecedent "Mary's party." Would that render "it was" and the omitted version acceptable? If not, what is the reason?

Also, I meant to say:

One will wonder why we cannot take similar steps in "He invited some friends, but nothing exciting, special, etc." and treat an implied "*it (= the party)* was" as if it were there.

"The party" (or any other kind of gathering) is implied just as you think "his writing" in the Phil sentence is implied.


----------



## Edinburgher

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Could you pin down what's unidiomatic, and explain why it's unidiomatic, if possible?


 No, I'm afraid I can't.  It's all down to intuition and experience.


> Learners should strive to find all that is logical about a language, i.e., the system of rules regulating its use.


Yes, indeed they should.  So they learn a bunch of rules and then they find they don't always work, i.e. they come across exceptions.  Then they discover a certain regularity to the exceptions, and formulate new rules that explain when the exceptions apply.  Then they find *those* don't always work either. English is very much like that. In certain areas the rules are such that there their exceptions outnumber the cases that aren't. At that point, you have little choice but to forget about trying to make or understand rules -- they lose their usefulness.


> You mean "He delivered a performance, but nothing exciting" does not sound natural? I'd like to know which part you find unnatural, and how it differs from sentences with "but nothing . . ." you find natural.


Yes, I do.  Somehow "but nothing" just doesn't connect well to what precedes it.  We'd be more likely in this situation to use a complete clause after "but".  Again it's difficult to pin down why.


> I was talking about why the Phil sentence is not ambiguous; the other reading, the one involving "his writing," would depend on something not in the sentence.


So was I.


> In "John invited many friends to Mary's party, but (it was) nothing special," we already have an explicit antecedent "Mary's party." Would that render "it was" and the omitted version acceptable? If not, what is the reason?


 It would be acceptable, but it's still a construction that is far from ideal, because the party is not the main focus of the preceding clause.  Although the party is really the only feasible antecedent for "it", would we write it like this in the first place?  Probably not.  It would work better if the party had been more prominent instead of buried in a prepositional phrase:  "John organized a party for Mary, but it was nothing special." This would be fine, even if you then insert either "to which he invited many friends," or "and he invited many friends (to it),".


> One will wonder why we cannot take similar steps in "He invited some friends, but nothing exciting, special, etc." and treat an implied "*it (= the party)* was" as if it were there.


 I think the version with "it was" is already borderline (as I've just tried to explain), and I guess omitting "it was" is just a step too far.


> "The party" (or any other kind of gathering) is implied just as you think "his writing" in the Phil sentence is implied.


I don't really think "his writing" is implied.  The ambiguity I mentioned in #22 is a weak one.  The interpretation #2 would be quite remote for me, and this implied party would be even more remote.


----------



## shazbok

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> What does the "it" in the second one refer to?



"It" would be the 'event' described in the sentence - that is, 'the being punched in the stomach'. 

I just used 'came of it' as an example of a phrase with a verb in it that would be plausible in context, but like I said, you wouldn't say that IRL, not least because it's not a standard assumption that '[something] serious' generally _does _come of a punch in the stomach, certainly not the extent that you need to point out when it doesn't! 

But now that I think about it, if instead of punch in the stomach, you'd put 'he was in a car crash' I think I _would _buy it as is. It might just be the oddness of being choosing to 'explain' that a punch in the stomach isn't serious that makes it sound weird! I feel like this is getting into an area of individual interpretation of the potential lethality of bodily injuries rather than a question of language at this point! Do other people think the phrase sounds off?


----------



## Edinburgher

shazbok said:


> Do other people think the phrase sounds off?


Do you mean do we think "He was punched in the stomach, but nothing serious"  sounds off?  Yes I do.
Do I think "He was in a car crash, but nothing serious" sounds off?  Yes I do, though it's not as bad as the stomach one.  I'd still prefer to see "it was".
Do I think "He was in a car crash, but nothing serious came of it" sounds off?  Yes I do,  because when something "comes of" something else, we tend mean a consequence that is not immediate.  It would mean something like, perhaps, that the owners of the other car did not sue, or that he wasn't charged by the police with dangerous driving.

In practice, this is not a typical role for "nothing".  I'd be more likely to say "but it wasn't serious" than "but is was nothing serious".


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Do the following sentences sound off?

He invited many friends to the party, but no one special.

He is making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary.

He bought a painting, but nothing expensive.

Some chain stores have reported satisfactory sales, but nothing impressive.


----------



## heypresto

My thoughts:

He invited many friends to the party, but no one special = He invited many friends to the party, but _he didn't invite anyone _special. Aren't his friends 'special'?

He is making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary.  I don't know what this could mean.

He bought a painting, but nothing expensive.  _He bought some/a few painting*s*, but nothing expensive._ 

Some chain stores have reported satisfactory sales, but nothing impressive.    I think this is OK.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

heypresto said:


> My thoughts:
> 
> He invited many friends to the party, but no one special = He invited many friends to the party, but _he didn't invite anyone _special. Aren't his friends 'special'?



If his friends are not so special to him and he thinks the CEO of the company he works for is more important, is that sentence okay?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

It might be interesting to compare the odd-sounding " He is making a living as an office clerk, but nothing *ordinary*" with the relatively well-formed " Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing *to set the Thames on fire*."

The former is intended to say his job as an office clerk is not ordinary, contrary to what most people think of the job.

The latter says that his job as a writer is not remarkable, contrary to what people might think of his job.

If we go on and consider the well-accepted "Some chain stores have reported satisfactory sales, but nothing *impressive*," could we conclude that the elliptical "but nothing + modifier" is felicitous only when the modifier expresses a high degree of significance or importance?


----------



## Chasint

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> "I stayed in a hotel, but nothing luxurious"  can be similarly be expanded into "I stayed in a hotel, but (I stayed in) nothing luxurious"
> 
> Similar ellipsis:
> 
> He was doing okay, but not spectacularly well. ->  He was doing okay, but (he was) not (doing) spectacularly well.




The above is the source of your trouble. These are not similar. At least the way you have expanded them is not similar.

Here is my analysis

"I stayed in a hotel, but nothing luxurious" --> "I stayed in a hotel, but (it was) nothing luxurious" --> "I stayed in a hotel, but (the hotel was) nothing (that would be considered) luxurious"

_______________________________________________________



> Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire.



--> Phil was making a living as a writer, but (his living as a writer was) nothing to set the Thames on fire.

Note that Phil might be making a good living as a plumber, but his living as a writer was paltry. (Perhaps he writes in his his spare time and earns very little from it)


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Chasint said:


> The above is the source of your trouble. These are not similar. At least the way you have expanded them is not similar.



Both similarly involve retrieval of a subject and a predicate from the preceding clause.



Chasint said:


> Here is my analysis
> 
> "I stayed in a hotel, but nothing luxurious" --> "I stayed in a hotel, but (it was) nothing luxurious" --> "I stayed in a hotel, but (the hotel was) nothing (that would be considered) luxurious"
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> --> Phil was making a living as a writer, but (his living as a writer was) nothing to set the Thames on fire.
> 
> Note that Phil might be making a good living as a plumber, but his living as a writer was paltry. (Perhaps he writes in his his spare time and earns very little from it)



The lexical insertion-based analysis would need to rule out "He was making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary," which would be analyzed as " He was making a living as an office clerk, but (his living as an office clerk was) nothing ordinary. "


----------



## kentix

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> The latter says that his job as a writer is not remarkable, contrary to what people might think of his job.


That's not what it's saying and that is, perhaps, the source of your difficulties.

Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire.​
This is only talking about Phil's personal career success, not about the job of being a writer. What it is saying is:

Phil was earning money as a writer, but was not earning a significantly large amount of money (nor gaining the fame that would go with that, in this case).​
You could substitute any job because the sentence is about Phil, not the job.

Phil was making a living as an insurance salesman, but nothing to set the Thames on fire.​
He was moderately successful, but not getting rich. He will probably never get famous being an insurance salesman but that's not essential to the meaning. The essence of the sentence is about great success versus moderate success.

In essence, the sentence is:

Phil was a moderate success (in this case as a writer), but not a great success.​
Success is being directly compared on both sides. And "success" essentially means "earning money".

He is making a living as an office clerk, but nothing *ordinary.*​
This sentence is doing nothing similar. It has no logic.

He is making a normal living (in this case as an office clerk), but nothing *ordinary*.​
He is doing something ordinary but it's not ordinary.

If you want to compare jobs and not success within a job, you need a different sentence.

He was making a good living as a teacher, but nothing like he might have made if he had become a corporate executive.​


----------



## Chasint

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Both similarly involve retrieval of a subject and a predicate from the preceding clause.
> The lexical insertion-based analysis would need to rule out "He was making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary," which would be analyzed as " He was making a living as an office clerk, but (his living as an office clerk was) nothing ordinary. "



Well, I agree with you. However I, and I don't think anyone else, knows what you mean by  "He was making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary"  Not only isn't it idiomatic but  I can make no sense of it at all.  Inevitably if the input to my method of expansion is nonsense, so will the output be.

Please can you explain in detail what you mean by "He was making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Chasint said:


> Well, I agree with you. However I, and I don't think anyone else, knows what you mean by  "He was making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary"  Not only isn't it idiomatic but  I can make no sense of it at all.  Inevitably if the input to my method of expansion is nonsense, so will the output be.
> 
> Please can you explain in detail what you mean by "He was making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary."



I presume you know what "making a living as an office clerk" means. The remaining bit of the sentence is meant to say his living, that is to say the way he earns money, is not ordinary, unlike ordinary office clerks.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

kentix said:


> He is making a living as an office clerk, but nothing *ordinary.*
> 
> This sentence is doing nothing similar. It has no logic.
> 
> He is making a normal living (in this case as an office clerk), but nothing *ordinary*.​
> He is doing something ordinary but it's not ordinary.



There is logic in it, since conceivably, there can be office clerks who are not ordinary. But the step in your reasoning, as reflected in "He is doing something ordinary but it's not ordinary" does not take that possibility into account, and thus make the sentence seem illogical.


----------



## Chasint

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> I presume you know what "making a living as an office clerk" means. The remaining bit of the sentence is meant to say his living, that is to say the way he earns money, is not ordinary, unlike ordinary office clerks.


Of course I know what "making a living as an office clerk" means - I am a native speaker of English. I also know what "but nothing ordinary" means.

What makes no sense is the combination of these two phrases. The fact that you wish to connect them indicates that you have not understood the concept yet. You appear to be trying to convince us that your interpretation should be correct. I don't think you will succeed.

Here are examples of the two components used correctly.

_He is making a living as an office clerk, but the living he makes is out of the ordinary.  (or extraordinary)

He wanted to make a living as an office clerk but nothing ordinary. (He wanted to make a lot more money than other clerks)_


----------



## kentix

I am going by what the sentence says. If you have an unusual situation to explain, then you need to explain it. That sentence doesn't explain it. "He's making a living" has the connotation of boring everyday life. Millions of people are out there right now "making a living". They go to work to earn money to pay for life. That's as ordinary as it gets. People who are highly successfully are not described as "making a living".

Bill Gates is never described as making a living in the computer business. Joe Biden is not going to be "making a living" as president. J.K. Rowling isn't referred to as "making her living" as a writer.

So by using the phrase "making a living" together with "office clerk" you are telling us this person is one of millions of people out there with a 9 to 5 sort of job doing clerical work that no one really cares about for its own sake but is necessary for whatever organization he is working for to run smoothly.



raymondaliasapollyon said:


> There is logic in it, since conceivably, there can be office clerks who are not ordinary.


If you think that's true then you need to say it clearly, because no one thinks there is anything extraordinary about office clerks, even office clerks.

He is making a living as an office clerk, but he's not your average office clerk. He's different*.*​


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Chasint said:


> What makes no sense is the combination of these two phrases. The fact that you wish to connect them indicates that you have not understood the concept yet. You appear to be trying to convince us that your interpretation should be correct. I don't think you will succeed.
> 
> Here are examples of the two components used correctly.
> 
> _He is making a living as an office clerk, but the living he makes is out of the ordinary.  (or extraordinary)_



The question is exactly why "He is making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary" cannot be understood as "He is making a living as an office clerk, but the living he makes is out of the ordinary (or not ordinary). On the other hand, "Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire"  can be understood as "Phil was making a living as a writer, but the living he makes could not set the Thames on Fire."

In the former, "nothing ordinary" is meant to trigger the negation of being ordinary. By the same mechanism, "nothing to set the Thames on fire" also triggers the negation of "setting the Thames on fire," i.e., the negation of being extraordinary.

The reasoning patterns of the two sentences are actually the same, but one is natural and the other is not. We need to know why.


----------



## Chasint

> We need to know why.



I have identified why in what follows. I have no time to go into detail right now. I shall return later today.



> He is making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary.



I can see a way of rescuing this sentence. You could say, " He is making a living as an office clerk, *and* nothing ordinary." This implies that his living as an office clerk is unusual.

The problem with your original version is the use of "but".


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

kentix said:


> I am going by what the sentence says. If you have an unusual situation to explain, then you need to explain it. That sentence doesn't explain it. "He's making a living" has the connotation of boring everyday life. Millions of people are out there right now "making a living". They go to work to earn money to pay for life. That's as ordinary as it gets. People who are highly successfully are not described as "making a living".
> 
> Bill Gates is never described as making a living in the computer business. Joe Biden is not going to be "making a living" as president. J.K. Rowling isn't referred to as "making her living" as a writer.
> 
> So by using the phrase "making a living" together with "office clerk" you are telling us this person is one of millions of people out there with a 9 to 5 sort of job doing clerical work that no one really cares about for its own sake but is necessary for whatever organization he is working for to run smoothly.
> 
> 
> If you think that's true then you need to say it clearly, because no one thinks there is anything extraordinary about office clerks, even office clerks.
> 
> He is making a living as an office clerk, but he's not your average office clerk. He's different*.*​



Office clerks who are not ordinary are not necessarily earning lots of money. They can be extraordinary in small ways. They can still be described as "making a living" while being not ordinary, for example by doing (illegal) side business in the workplace. 

Is it necessary to say everything clearly, even in creative work? Anyway, do you think "He is making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary" could make sense in this sort of "extraordinary" scenario?


----------



## Roxxxannne

Chasint sounds like the mathematician Pierre de Fermat, who wrote (in the early 17th century) in the margin of a book that he had thought of a proof for a problem in number theory but no space to write out the proof in the margin.  He never wrote out the proof, and it took mathematicians more than 350 years before someone came up with the proof.

To return to the subject, I suspect that this idiomatic expression makes sense to native English speakers only (or mainly) when it is used to negate something unusual: 'nothing extraordinary,' 'nothing expensive,' 'nothing unusual,' 'nothing special,' 'nothing serious,' 'nothing to set the Thames on fire,' 'nothing to write home about.'  
When the negation is of something ordinary, the phase needs to be expanded to make sense:  'He made a living as an office clerk, but it was nothing ordinary' is close to being clear to me.  A) 'He made a living as an office clerk, but it was not an ordinary living' and  B) 'He made a living as an office clerk, but he was not an ordinary clerk' make sense.
I would expect A) to be followed by a sentence explaining something extraordinary about his way of life (he lived in a tree house, he wore yellow spats and frequented illegal gambling dens, etc.).  
I would expect B) to be followed by something like "In fact, he was a famous poet and was published in all the literary magazines of the day."


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Roxxxannne said:


> To return to the subject, I suspect that this idiomatic expression makes sense to native English speakers only (or mainly) when it is used to negate something unusual: 'nothing extraordinary,' 'nothing expensive,' 'nothing unusual,' 'nothing special,' 'nothing serious,' 'nothing to set the Thames on fire,' 'nothing to write home about.'



I made similar remarks in post #37:

_. . .could we conclude that the elliptical "but nothing + modifier" is felicitous only when the modifier expresses a high degree of significance or importance?_

But "nothing expensive," "nothing serious",  and "nothing special" might not fit the bill because they are either too trite (thus having lost their force) or not strong enough. I think people here might reject the following:

? He was hit in a car crash, but nothing serious.


----------



## Roxxxannne

"He was hit in a car crash but nothing serious" is almost clear, but not quite.
First, 'hit' is ambiguous.  Was he struck by a car during a car crash or is 'he' standing in for 'his car'?
I'm not sure, from that one context-free sentence, whether the 'hit' was not serious or the car crash was not serious.   One can walk away with minor injuries from a serious car accident in which the car was totaled and someone else in the car was killed.

'Nothing expensive,' 'nothing serious,'  and 'nothing special' are common, but I think they 'fit the bill,' if you mean by that that they make sense in sentences such as the following:

1) I asked him what he wanted for a birthday present, and he said "Oh, maybe a few pairs of socks or a grammar book, but nothing expensive."
or
"Oh, maybe a few pairs of socks or a grammar book -- nothing expensive."

2) When I saw the phone call was from Grace, I was worried it was another crisis, but she said, "I'm just calling to say that we heard from the vet; Mittens has a sprained paw, but nothing serious."

3) A: What did you see on your bird-watching walk in the park?
    B: Oh, two herons and a flock of geese, but nothing special.  No owls or hawks.


----------



## kentix

The other problem you have in "nothing ordinary" is not at one end of the scale. The phrase is used to compare things along a scale and ordinary is not at one end.

_Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire. _

Not making a living--------making a living--------making a great living (setting the Thames on fire)

So, you can see the comparison being made. He was "making a living" means he was earning enough to live on. It sets him apart from the low end, "not making a living", where he would have been forced to go into a different line of work. The next part sets him apart from the high end, "but nothing to set the Thames on fire". But no aspect of it was enough to consider him an exceptional success - money or fame.

Now look at this sentence.

_He is making a living as an office clerk, but nothing ordinary. _

You see how the scale make no sense? There's not a low, middle and high, and he isn't in a spot along that scale. Ordinary and making a living are the same thing. So you say he's ordinary but not ordinary. Your problem is you want to write a sentence that says he's not ordinary by first calling him ordinary.

_Even though he is an office clerk, there is nothing ordinary about where he works. He's at a research station at the South Pole._

Now you're telling your reader from the very beginning that he's not ordinary by using "even though". The job might be an ordinary type job,, but he is not an ordinary example. That makes sense.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Do the following sound okay?

He bought a painting by a Dutch artist, but nothing expensive.
He threw a birthday party, but nothing special.


----------



## kentix

"He was hit in a car crash, but nothing serious."  

"Did you hear Bill was in a car crash this morning?"
"No. How is he?"
"He sustained some injuries, but nothing serious."  

The scale:
No injuries----------Minor injuries----------Serious injuries

"He sustained some injuries, but nothing serious." This places him on the scale. He's not at the "no injuries" end, but at the same time, he's not at the serious injuries end either.

- "He sustained some *injuries*, but *none of his injuries are* serious."

- "Phil was making *money *as a writer, but *the money he was making wasn't extraordinary*."


----------



## heypresto

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> Do the following sound okay?
> 
> He bought a painting by a Dutch artist, but nothing expensive.
> He threw a birthday party, but nothing special.



He bought a painting by a Dutch artist, but nothing expensive.   
He bought *some/a few* painting*s* by a Dutch artist, but nothing expensive. 
He bought a painting by a Dutch artist, but *it was not* expensive. 

He threw a birthday party, but nothing special. 
He threw a birthday party, but *it was* nothing special.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Could it be that what comes before "nothing expensive/special must be pluralized?

How about the following?

He makes a living as a plumber and a mason, but nothing special.

He makes a living as a plumber, but nothing special.


----------



## kentix

No.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

How do you rule out "He makes a living as a plumber and a mason, but nothing special" and "He makes a living as a plumber, but nothing special"?

Don't they have the following scale?

Not making a living--------making a living--------making a special living

How do you rule out "He threw a birthday party, but nothing special?

Not throwing a birthday party--------throwing a birthday party---------throwing a special birthday party


----------



## Edinburgher

There isn't really any such thing as a "special living".  That rules this one out.  Also, even without that problem, pluralizing would not fix this, because there is still only one "living" being made.  Even if he works both as a mason and a plumber, he is only "making a living", not making two livings.  This "living" is uncountable.

Conceivably the birthday party example could be made to work if pluralized.
_He has thrown several birthday parties this year, but nothing special._  could be understood to mean that all his parties have been mediocre.
It sounds less awkward than the singular example, but not really *sufficiently* less awkward for my taste: I'd probably say "but none of them were special" instead.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

How about "He makes a living as a plumber, but nothing decent"?



Edinburgher said:


> It sounds less awkward than the singular example, but not really *sufficiently* less awkward for my taste: I'd probably say "but none of them were special" instead.



Pluralization makes a difference in the painting example. Is the difference significant to you?


----------



## Edinburgher

No.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Edinburgher said:


> No.



Is the "no" directed toward both questions?


----------



## Edinburgher

The "no" was directed only at the first.  It was the only question I saw.  Did you edit #60 to add the second one, or am I imagining things?

Anyway, turning now to the second, I mentioned pluralizing in #59 because I agree with #55 where pluralizing does make it acceptable.  That's clearly one example where it helps, but doesn't mean it will always help.  I reckon that in the birthday party example it doesn't help enough.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

What if I replaced "special" with "extraordinary"? "He makes a living as a plumber, but nothing extraordinary." How does it sound?


----------



## Edinburgher

Not much better.  Still pretty bad.

I know what you're going to ask next: What if you replaced it with "to set the Thames on fire"?


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

"Extraordinary" and "to set the Thames on fire" are pretty similar. Why do people accept "Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire" but reject "He makes a living as a plumber, but nothing extraordinary"? I am wondering whether it has to do with people's expectation; a writer is expected to be extremely successful, moderately successful, or not successful at all, so the "but nothing to set the Thames on fire" serves to clarify the degree of his or her success. 

But do people expect a plumber to be extremely successful, moderately successful, etc., the way a writer is expected to be?


----------



## Edinburgher

I think the real problem is that the original text (in #1) is pretty borderline to begin with, and the "but nothing" part is "acceptable" only because of the unusual idiom that follows it.  It would also sort-of work with "to write home about", but not really with anything more orthodox like "extraordinary", "special", etc.

I don't think it has anything to do with the difference between writers (often imagined as struggling artists) and plumbers (often seen as overpaid bastards).


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Do you mean the second sentence in the following is even less acceptable than the first?

a.  Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire.
b.  Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing extraordinary.


----------



## Edinburgher

Yes.


----------



## Myridon

The problem I have with all the sentences above is that the final phrase doesn't apply to "living" for me.
He makes a living as a plumber, but nothing special.  He doesn't do special plumbing. He installs toilets, not dancing water fountains.
Phil writes ordinary things, nothing extraordinary.


----------



## Roxxxannne

I agree with Egmont in #69. Sentence a) in #68 is just barely acceptable because "nothing to set the Thames on fire" is extremely unusual; I have never heard that exact expression before.  
Because of that, I'm willing to take this sentence as something beyond ordinary prosaic English and accept the fact that the sentence goes from point A (Phil was making a leaving as a writer) to point C (but nothing to set the Thames on fire) while leaving out point B (of science-fiction novels), which I insert between A and C as I read.

The issue to me has to do with how much one can compress before the sentence is not readily understood by someone reading quickly and expecting the clarity of prose, rather than the ambiguity of poetry.

I return to my sentence in #51:
When I saw the phone call was from Grace, I was worried it was another crisis, but she said, "I'm just calling to say that we heard from the vet. Mittens has a sprained paw, but nothing serious."
Grace could have said several things:
1)  Mittens has a sprained paw, but the injury is not anything the vet thinks is serious.
2)  Mittens has a sprained paw, but the injury is not anything serious.
3)  Mittens has a sprained paw, but the injury is nothing serious.
4)  Mittens has a sprained paw, but it's nothing serious.
5)  Mittens has a sprained paw, but nothing serious.
5)  Mittens has a sprained paw -- nothing serious.

This is sort of a linguistic version of the mathematical transitive property.
A (sprained paw) = B (injury) = C (nothing serious), therefore A (sprained paw) = C (nothing serious).
We have to know exactly what B is before we can accept that A = C.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

If we replaced "to set the Thames on fire" with the more familiar idiom "to set the world on fire," would your judgment change?


----------



## Roxxxannne

Yes, my judgment would change.
I said earlier that 'Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire' is "just barely acceptable because 'nothing to set the Thames on fire' is extremely unusual; I have never heard that exact expression before.  Because of that, I'm willing to take this sentence as something beyond ordinary prosaic English ...".
But now the sentence is ordinary prose (and prosaic).  It's  no longer a barely acceptable piece of ambiguity such as exists in poetry.
Now it's unacceptable.
In fact, the more I reread 'Phil was making a living as a writer, but nothing to set the Thames on fire,' the more I become used to the expression.  The more used to it I become, the less acceptable the sentence is.

We can't say that because A = B = C, therefore A = C; we don't know exactly what B is.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Do you perceive any difference in acceptability in the following?

He would buy an occasional beer, but nothing expensive.
He bought a beer, but nothing expensive.


----------



## Edinburgher

raymondaliasapollyon said:


> He would buy an occasional beer, but nothing expensive.
> He bought a beer, but nothing expensive.


I find the second of those slightly more acceptable (or perhaps I should say slightly less unacceptable).
I'd rather say "but never anything expensive" for the first and "but not an expensive one" for the second.


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Edinburgher said:


> I find the second of those slightly more acceptable (or perhaps I should say slightly less unacceptable).
> I'd rather say "but never anything expensive" for the first and "but not an expensive one" for the second.



Interesting. Your judgment is the opposite of two people's here.


----------



## Edinburgher

I wouldn't put it as strongly as "the opposite".  They seem to agree with me that neither option is particularly good.
Ranking the amount of opposition we feel to two "bad" options can easily give different results, especially when the difference is small (I did use the word "slightly").


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

Edinburgher said:


> I wouldn't put it as strongly as "the opposite".  They seem to agree with me that neither option is particularly good.
> Ranking the amount of opposition we feel to two "bad" options can easily give different results, especially when the difference is small (I did use the word "slightly").



I was referring to the remarks by Peter T. Daniels and Lewis. The former said the first sentence is "not terrible." The latter said of the second sentence, "The second one sounds wrong to me.  f someone said it I would not be confused at the meaning but I would wonder why it was said that way." (see here)  I suppose that at least for Lewis, the difference is not small.


----------



## Edinburgher

I interpret "not terrible" as meaning "bad, but not very bad"; it doesn't mean "good".


----------



## raymondaliasapollyon

I've asked Peter T. Daniels to clarify what he meant by "not terrible." (Maybe it's barely acceptable, not perfectly so?) Meanwhile, it is worth noting that he draws the line between "has to be . . ." and (via inference) "doesn't have to be . . . "

_The first one is not terrible, *but the second one has to be* "He bought a can of beer, but not an expensive one."_

I take it to be a significant difference.


----------

