# as black a pirate as (=who?) ever raised a sail



## thetazuo

“Euron. Crow’s Eye, they call him, as black a pirate *as* ever raised a sail.”

Excerpt From: George R.R. Martin. “A Storm of Swords.” Bantam. iBooks.

Hi. Does the second "as" also assumes the role of a relative noun, which is "who" in this case? He's always been black since he raised a sail?

Thank you.


----------



## Edinburgher

It means he is as black as any other pirate who has ever raised a sail.
It may offend your sense of political correctness, but I do believe this is a reference to his skin colour, which is very black indeed, more so than usual. This seems to be incorrect.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Here's a picture of him:







The second _as_ doesn't act as a relative pronoun; the _as...as_ construction is an idiom for _as adjective as any noun_ who...

As you can see, perhaps, Euron is described as 'pale and handsome with a dark beard'.  The 'black' refers to his disgraceful moral qualities; after all he captains a ship of mutes who have had their tongues ripped out.


----------



## dojibear

I don't know the book. But "as black a pirate as ever raised a sail" usually means "as evil a pirate", not his skin color.

(cross-posted with #3)


----------



## dojibear

As #3 points out, "<subject> is as <adjective> as <noun>" is a standard syntax in English.

It means: both <subject> and <noun> are <adjective>. And of the two, <subject> is not less <adjective>.

Judy is as pretty as Suzy. (this means Suzy is not prettier)

Judy is as pretty as any girl in town. (no girl in town is prettier than Judy)

He is as black a pirate *as* ever raised a sail.(no other pirate is blacker. The "sail" part is just colorful: all pirates raise sails)


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all. I thought the _as ... as ..._ construction is making comparison between his present personality and his past personality.
But in this sentence the second as is a relative pronoun, right?
_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as (=that)* he can afford._

Or should I understand it as _He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* any other cigarette that he can afford.?_


----------



## Thomas Tompion

We can't say_ He smokes as expensive a cigarette *that* he can afford, _so, for me, it's not relative pronoun. _
_
I think you should understand it as _He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* any other cigarette that he can afford.?_


----------



## thetazuo

Thomas Tompion said:


> We can't say_ He smokes as expensive a cigarette *that* he can afford, _so, for me, it's not relative pronoun.
> 
> I think you should understand it as _He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* any other cigarette that he can afford.?_


Thank you. So does it mean no other cigarette is more expensive than the one he smokes?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> Thank you. So does it mean no other cigarette is more expensive than the one he smokes?


No. No other cigarette _that he can afford_ is more expensive than the one(s) he smokes. He smokes the most expensive cigarettes he can afford, but there might be others, more expensive, that he cannot.


----------



## heypresto

No. It means that of all the cigarettes he can afford, he smokes the most expensive one. There may be many cigarettes he can't afford.

Cross-posted.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you both. I forgot to add "he can afford". And I didn't know the construction _as ... as ... _can express the superlative. I used to think it expressed the idea that two things are on a par.


----------



## thetazuo

heypresto said:


> No. It means that of all the cigarettes he can afford, he smokes the most expensive one. There may be many cigarettes he can't afford.
> 
> Cross-posted.


It just occurred to me: should we read the op sentence as: Of all the pirates, Euron is the blackest; or: in terms of the blackness, he is on a par with any other pirates?


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> It just occurred to me: should we read the op sentence as: Of all the pirates, Euron is the blackest; or: in terms of the blackness, he is on a par with any other pirates?


He is as black as the blackest. There might be others equally as black as him, but none are blacker.


----------



## lingobingo

It’s a fairly simple “as … as” comparison. I would have thought the less common aspect of the phrase was the use of the indefinite article.

*as black a pirate* as [any that] ever raised a sail
=
*a pirate *[who was] *as black* as any [pirate] that ever raised a sail


(I haven’t read the whole thread, so apologies if this has already been said.)


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you both. So in a word, he is among the blackest pirates who have ever raised sails, right?


----------



## lingobingo

Yes, in effect. But more specifically *equally* “black” — _archaic_ very evil or wicked (Oxford) — since that’s the point of the _as … as_ construction.


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> Yes, in effect. But more specifically *equally* “black” — _archaic_ very evil or wicked (Oxford) — since that’s the point of the _as … as_ construction.


Thank you. I see. So in the smoking example in #6, in effect the cigarette he smokes is among/one of the most expensive ones he can afford, because there might be other cigarettes he can afford which are equally as expensive as the one he smokes, right?


----------



## Packard

thetazuo said:


> Thank you both. So in a word, he is among the blackest pirates who have ever raised sails, right?



I got the sense that there might be some misunderstanding of "black".

Pirates raised the "Jolly Roger" flag when in attack mode.  It was a black flag with a skull and crossbones.  The color "black" refers back to the nature of the work, not the color of the participant.   

Jolly Roger - Wikipedia

*Jolly Roger* is the traditional English name for the flags flown to identify a pirate ship about to attack, during the early 18th century (the later part of the Golden Age of Piracy).

The flag most commonly identified as the Jolly Roger today, the skull and crossbones symbol on a black flag, was used during the 1710s by a number of pirate captains including Black Sam Bellamy, Edward England, and John Taylor, and it went on to become the most commonly used pirate flag during the 1720s.


----------



## lingobingo

_He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford.
_
You’re assuming that there may be other cigarette brands that cost the same as the one he smokes (which of course is entirely possible), but no such implication exists in that sentence. It simply states that the brand of cigarette that he smokes is the most expensive one he can afford — it’s *as expensive as* his budget allows.


----------



## thetazuo

lingobingo said:


> You’re assuming that there may be other cigarette brands that cost the same as the one he smokes (which of course is entirely possible), but no such implication exists in that sentence.


Thank you, lingobingo. But why such similar implication (among the most xxx) exists in the pirate example but doesn't exist in the smoking example when both of them use the as ... as ... construction?
I was told the smoking example can be read as _He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* any other cigarette that he can afford. , _just like the pirate example in #7.
Sorry if this question seems stupid, but I'm still confused.


----------



## lingobingo

_… as black a pirate as ever raised a sail 
… as expensive a cigarette as he can afford _

It’s only the parts in red that are the same construction. The construction can form part of sentences expressing various different types of comparison, and what the subject+adjective combination is being compared with/to is irrelevant to the grammatical construction itself. In some examples there’s no hint of “among” anything:

_Paul was almost as foolish a child as his brother / Exercise is as important a factor as diet_


----------



## Uncle Jack

There may have been other pirates as black as him, but there might not have been. There have been none blacker.
There may be other cigarettes he could afford as expensive as the ones he smokes, but there might not be. There are no cigarettes more expensive that he can afford. There may be others more expensive that he cannot afford (but there might not be).


----------



## Barque

I'm not sure the two examples are exactly parallel.

_He was as black a pirate as ever raised a sail = There was no pirate more evil than him. He was as "black" as the blackest pirate ever.

He smoked as expensive a cigarette as he could afford = There was no cigarette that he could afford that was more expensive than the ones he smoked (though there may have been some that cost the same)._ But there might have been more expensive cigarettes that he _couldn't_ afford.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all. This seems to be more a logical question than a grammatical one.
After reading the latest replies several times, I think Uncle Jack, along wth Braque, and lingobingo say the difference things. Uncle Jack says "There may be other cigarettes (brands) he could afford as expensive as the ones he smokes, but there might not be", but lingobingo says there is no such implication.
And UJ and Barque use the word "ones", which suggests he might smoke several different equally most expensive brands he can afford, instead of only one brand ---- that's what I mean by "among". Please let me know if I misunderstand your meanings.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> Uncle Jack says "There may be other cigarettes (brands) he could afford as expensive as the ones he smokes, but there might not be",


That's what I meant too.


thetazuo said:


> And UJ and Barque use the word "ones", which suggests he might smoke several different most expensive brands he can afford, instead of only one brand


By "ones" I meant cigarettes of a single brand, not several different brands.


----------



## lingobingo

thetazuo said:


> Uncle Jack says "There may be other cigarettes (brands) he could afford as expensive as the ones he smokes, but there might not be", but lingobingo says there is no such implication.


What lingobingo actually said was:
You’re assuming that there may be other cigarette brands that cost the same as the one he smokes *(which of course is entirely possible) *…

But, as you yourself have just explained, that’s to do with logic and is gleaned from the context, not the grammar as such.


----------



## Thomas Tompion

Of course some people are famously difficult: you've got a black cat; they've got a blacker one.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all. I suppose the idea "brands" is irrelevant in understanding the sentence.

The original sentence "_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* he can afford._" is *not* equivalent to "_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* *any (other) cigarette that* he can afford_".

_1. He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* he can afford.
2. He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as any (other) cigarette that* he can afford._

Both 1 and 2 mean no other cigarette that he can afford is more expensive than the one(s) he smokes.

But 2 does imply the cigarette he smokes is among/one of the most expensive ones he can afford --- there might be other cigarettes he could afford that cost the same as the ones he smokes. This implication exists in 2 but not in 1.


Uncle Jack said:


> There may be other cigarettes he could afford as expensive as the ones he smokes, but there might not be.


Yes, but the original sentence has no such implication.
Please let know if I understand you, thank you.
Sorry if this thinking disagrees with what is suggested in post #7.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> The original sentence "_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* he can afford._" is *not* equivalent to "_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* *any other cigarette that* he can afford_".


I'm not sure the second sentence means what it's meant to. Cigarettes that he can afford may range in price from the cheapest one available to, for instance, a medium-priced brand. He may be able to afford any of them. The second sentence could even refer to a cheap brand that he can easily afford to buy.

The sentence "He smokes as expensive a cigarette/as expensive cigarettes as he can afford" means "He smokes the most expensive cigarettes he can afford". There may or may not be more than one brand at that price.


----------



## Uncle Jack

thetazuo said:


> Yes, but the original sentence has no such implication.
> Please let know if I understand you, thank you.


Which original sentence are you talking about?

_As black a pirate as ever raised a sail_ is talking about one pirate. There may be other pirates as black as him. There may not be, we cannot tell.

_He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford_ could be talking about one type of cigarette or several, we cannot tell. There may be many types of cigarette as expensive as the one(s) he smokes, and he might smoke all of them, some of them or just one, or there might only be one type of cigarette that expensive. He doesn't smoke cigarettes that are cheaper, and there may be other cigarettes more expensive that he cannot afford.


----------



## thetazuo

Uncle Jack said:


> _As black a pirate as ever raised a sail_ is talking about one pirate. There may be other pirates as black as him. There may not be, we cannot tell.
> 
> _He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford_ could be talking about one type of cigarette or several, we cannot tell. There may be many types of cigarette as expensive as the one(s) he smokes, and he might smoke all of them, some of them or just one, or there might only be one type of cigarette that expensive. He doesn't smoke cigarettes that are cheaper, and there may be other cigarettes more expensive that he cannot afford.


Thank you, UJ. I know all of these, but my question doesn't seem to have any thing to do with types/brands of cigarette.


Uncle Jack said:


> Which original sentence are you talking about?


_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* he can afford. _

I just think what is written in post #7 might not be right. Thomas thinks I should understand it as _He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* any other cigarette that he can afford. _
But now after reading your replies I think the original sentence "_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* he can afford._" is *not* equivalent to "_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* *any (other) cigarette that* he can afford_".


thetazuo said:


> The original sentence "_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* he can afford._" is *not* equivalent to "_He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* *any (other) cigarette that* he can afford_".
> 
> _1. He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* he can afford.
> 2. He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as any (other) cigarette that* he can afford._
> 
> Both 1 and 2 mean no other cigarette that he can afford is more expensive than the one(s) he smokes.
> 
> But 2 does imply the cigarette he smokes is among/one of the most expensive ones he can afford --- there might be other cigarettes he could afford that cost the same as the ones he smokes. This implication exists in 2 but not in 1.


So what do you think of this thinking?


----------



## Edinburgher

thetazuo said:


> So what do you think of this thinking?


I think that thinking is muddled.


thetazuo said:


> _1. He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* he can afford.
> 2. He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as any (other) cigarette that* he can afford._
> 
> Both 1 and 2 mean no other cigarette that he can afford is more expensive than the one(s) he smokes.
> 
> But 2 does imply the cigarette he smokes is among/one of the most expensive ones he can afford --- there might be other cigarettes he could afford that cost the same as the ones he smokes. This implication exists in 2 but not in 1.


This implication exists in both versions.  The difference between (1) and (2) is that (2) adds "any (other) cigarette that".  This addition adds clarity, but does not change the meaning.

The main idea, expressed in both versions, is that, whenever he smokes, he smokes the most expensive cigarettes that he can afford.

It is always possible that the ones he chooses on that basis are either unique (because no other cigarettes cost exactly the same) or not unique (because some others do cost exactly the same).  Obviously, in the latter case, he could clearly afford any of those others, and they would be no cheaper than the ones he chooses, They would therefore all meet his eligibility criterion.

There is a maximum price he can afford.  Let's call this amount P.  He will not buy cigarettes than cost more than P.
There may be one kind that costs exactly P, and then he will buy those.
There may be several kinds that cost exactly P, and he will buy one of those.
There may be no kinds that cost exactly P.  In that case there will exist at least one kind that costs less than P (as otherwise he will be forced to stop smoking).
If there exists only one such kind, that's the kind he will buy.
If there exist several such kinds, they will either all cost the same, in which case he will buy one of them, or they will have different prices.
Then there will exist a price Q, such that Q<P, and there is no kind that costs more than Q and less than P, i.e. Q is the maximum price of all the kinds that cost less than P.
There may be only one kind that costs exactly Q, and then he will buy those.
There may be several kinds that cost exactly Q, and then he will buy one of them.

Easy.  All it takes is a bit of logical thinking.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Edinburgher. I could figure out the logic myself. But what do you think about post #19 and #21? In #17 I asked whether in the smoking example the idea "the cigarette he smokes is among/one of the most expensive ones he can afford" is conveyed and lingobingo said no in #19 and #21, to which you say yes however. I can't help but think it is a contradiction between you and lingobingo.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Lingobingo in post #19 is saying the same thing as Edinburgher and I have said: You cannot infer anything about cigarettes that he does not smoke from _He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford_. Lingobingo was replying to your post #17 where you used 'among/one of', which implies there are others equally expensive, but your original sentence carries no such implication.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. But


Edinburgher said:


> This implication exists in both versions.


While,


lingobingo said:


> but no such implication exists in that sentence.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but they did refer to the same implication I think.
Implication: There might be other cigarettes he could afford that cost the same as the ones he smokes.


Uncle Jack said:


> #17 where you used 'among/one of', which implies there are others equally expensive,


Yes, that's what I mean. The use of "among/one of" is due to that implication.


----------



## Edinburgher

I see what you mean. I'll revise my statement to "The implication exists in neither version".  

One problem is that "There might be...", is not really a solid implication.  "There are..." would be.  "There might be" merely speculates about a possible existence.  It's equivalent to "There might or might not be".  It's wishy-washy.  The word "any" doesn't imply that others exist, it only refers to those that might exist.

Although, unlike (2), (1) makes no mention of other cigarettes, the notion that others might exist does not in any way contradict (1).  In that sense (1) and (2) are equivalent.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, Edinburgher. I see. But then why the implication "among/one of the most xxx" exist in the pirate example, which implies there are others equally blackest? As all of you said, there might be others equally as black as him, but that doesn't mean others do exist. The word "any" doesn't imply that others exist, it only refers to those that might exist.
If the implication "among/one of the most xxx" doesn't exist in the smoking example, then it shouldn't exist in the pirate example either.


----------



## Edinburgher

OK, it isn't very helpful to think too much about an implication in the pirate example. *What* implication?  That there are other pirates?  That isn't an implication, it's more of a prior assumption.  We take it as given that many pirates exist.
And don't pay too much attention to "who ever raised a sail", that's just a narrative embellishment.  It doesn't mean that pirates specialize, some in hoisting sails, some in steering the ship, some in hurling grappling-irons, some in sword technique, etc.  The author might as easily have written "who ever sailed the seven seas".
Another given is that all pirates are black (in the sense of evil), and of course some are blacker than others.  If you could measure this blackness, then on a scale from one to ten, he'd be a ten.  But you can't measure blackness, it's too woolly a concept, and so it makes no sense to consider whether there are other pirates who are also tens, or whether his nearest neighbours are nines.  Also, there's nothing special about a scale of one to ten.  If you used a scale of one to five instead, then both the nines and tens would be fives.  If you used a scale of one to twenty, then some of the tens might be 19s and some 20s.
This is the key difference between the pirates and the cigarettes.  Cost is capable of being measured and compared precisely.  Blackness isn't.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you so much, Edin.


Edinburgher said:


> so it makes no sense to consider whether there are other pirates who are also tens, or whether his nearest neighbours are nines.


Does this mean it's not OK to say the implication for the pirate example is "he is among/one of the blackest pirates", which implies there are other pirates who are equally as black as him, which is merely a guess, not a fact, because this sentence carries no such implication? Because there might be no other pirate who is as black as him.


----------



## andrewg927

thetazuo said:


> Thank you so much, Edin.
> 
> Does this mean it's not OK to say the implication for the pirate example is "he is among/one of the blackest pirates", which implies there are other pirates who are equally as black as him, which is merely a guess, not a fact, because this sentence carries no such implication? Because there might be no other pirate who is as black as him.



You should try to replace the word "black" with the word "evil". I think  it makes it a lot easier to understand.

He is among the most evil pirates who ever set sail.


----------



## thetazuo

andrewg927 said:


> You should try to replace the word "black" with the word "evil". I think  it makes it a lot easier to understand.
> 
> He is among the most evil pirates who ever set sail.


Thank you. But that is not necessarily the case. That sentence can mean he is the most evil pirate who ever set sail in the world --- there is no pirate on a par with him, I think, right?


----------



## Barque

It implies there could be other pirates as evil as him. If the writer knew for sure there had never been a pirate as evil as him, he'd have said "He's the most evil pirate who ever set sail".


----------



## andrewg927

Barque said:


> It implies there could be other pirates as evil as him. If the writer knew for sure there had never been a pirate as evil as him, he'd have said "He's the most evil pirate who ever set sail".


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you both. But on the basis of what Edinburgher told me, I still think the pirate example says nothing about other equally evil pirates. There could/might (_or could/might not)_ be other pirates as evil as him. "There might be...", is not really a solid implication. "There are..." would be.


----------



## lingobingo

This has all gone off at a tangent and I’ve stopped following it, but with regard to that last comment…

An implication is a conclusion drawn despite something *not* being explicitly stated. If you say “there are” [whatever], that’s not an implication, it’s a statement.


----------



## Edinburgher

andrewg927 said:


> You should try to replace the word "black" with the word "evil".


Well said.  Evilness is even more difficult to quantify than blackness.


thetazuo said:


> I still think the pirate example says nothing about other equally evil pirates.


Exactly.  That's because equality is a concept that can't really be applied to evilness.  In particular, unlike with value or cost, you can't distinguish between "greater than" and "greater than or equal".  ">"  vs ">=".


lingobingo said:


> I’ve stopped following it


I'm not surprised.  "Life's too short".


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you.


Edinburgher said:


> Exactly. That's because equality is a concept that can't really be applied to evilness. In particular, unlike with value or cost, you can't distinguish between "greater than" and "greater than or equal". ">" vs ">=".


If so, I'd say the pirate example doesn't mean "he is among the blackest/most evil pirates who ever set sails" but means "he is the blackest pirate". The op example just talks about one (blackest) pirate, Euron. (see #30) Right?


----------



## andrewg927

thetazuo said:


> Thank you.
> 
> If so, I'd say the pirate example doesn't mean "he is among the blackest/most evil pirates who ever set sails" but means "he is the blackest pirate". The op example just talks about one (blackest) pirate, Euron. (see #30) Right?



Evilness is a quality. It is not easy to measure a quality but we all have some idea of what the ranking might be. The OP means he is among the most evil pirates.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you all. I'm not sure if I get Edinburgher's idea in #38. But I think if we have to find a reason why the cigarette example is not understood as "among the most xxx", that reason is we can measure the cost and compare costs precisely, so we can prove it to be the only most expensive brand (but we can't measure blackness compare blackness precisely so we can't prove he is the only blackest pirate). Does it make sense?
If it does, then I'd say such a sentence as "He scores on the exam as high as any in his class" tends to be understood as "His score is the highest in his class" rather than "His score is one of/among the highest in his class" since scores are capable of being measured and compared precisely. Right?


----------



## andrewg927

It would be clearer to me if you used "any other student in his class". "He scores on the exam as high as any other student in his class." The sentence would be understood as "his score is among the highest in the class". Why? Because if we want to say "his score is the highest in the class" we would say just that. It makes sense and it's simple. Just remember your original sentence uses a language that we typically call flowery. It sounds awesome in a book but as you see throughout this entire thread even native English speakers sometimes can't agree on what exactly these sentences are supposed to mean.


----------



## thetazuo

andrewg927 said:


> It would be clearer to me if you used "any other student in his class". "He scores on the exam as high as any other student in his class." The sentence would be understood as "his score is among the highest in the class". Why? Because if we want to say "his score is the highest in the class" we would say just that. It makes sense and it's simple. Just remember your original sentence uses a language that we typically call flowery. It sounds awesome in a book but as you see throughout this entire thread even native English speakers sometimes can't agree on what exactly these sentences are supposed to mean.


Thank you, andrew. So you think there is no reason why no such idea as "among the most xxx" exists in the cigarette example, right? It's frustrating to learn this.


----------



## andrewg927

Do you mind reciting that example? I just couldn't find it among so many different posts.


----------



## thetazuo

andrewg927 said:


> Do you mind reciting that example? I just couldn't find it among so many different posts.


He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford.


----------



## andrewg927

I'm not able to read all the above posts and requote them here so to answer your question I'm going to answer it in full. Your sentence means "he smokes the most expensive cigarettes he can afford." It does not mean "his cigarettes are among the most expensive." For example, in the US the price of a pack of cigarettes is about $6 but he can afford the pack that costs $8. So instead of smoking the $6 pack, he would buy the $8 one. By no means, $8 is the highest price for a pack of cigarettes but if he's unable to spend $10 on a pack of cigarettes, then $8 is the most he can afford and also the ones he chooses to smoke.


----------



## thetazuo

andrewg927 said:


> It does not mean "his cigarettes are among the most expensive."


Thank you. But I mean why it doesn't mean "his cigarettes are among the most expensive *he can afford*."?


----------



## andrewg927

thetazuo said:


> Thank you. But I mean why it doesn't mean "his cigarettes are among the most expensive *he can afford*."?



But it means exactly that.


----------



## thetazuo

andrewg927 said:


> But it means exactly that.


Interesting. But other participants say the opposite.


Uncle Jack said:


> Lingobingo in post #19 is saying the same thing as Edinburgher and I have said: You cannot infer anything about cigarettes that he does not smoke from _He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford_. Lingobingo was replying to your post #17 where you used 'among/one of', which implies there are others equally expensive, but your original sentence carries no such implication.





lingobingo said:


> You’re assuming that there may be other cigarette brands that cost the same as the one he smokes (which of course is entirely possible), but no such implication exists in that sentence.


----------



## andrewg927

What they said was entirely correct. You cannot infer anything about cigarettes that he* DOES NOT *smoke. I will repeat your sentence here: "His cigarettes are among the most expensive *HE* can afford*".* It is only about what *HE SMOKES.*


----------



## thetazuo

andrewg927 said:


> What they said was entirely correct. You cannot infer anything about cigarettes that he* DOES NOT *smoke. I will repeat your sentence here: "His cigarettes are among the most expensive *HE* can afford*".* It is only about what *HE SMOKES.*


Thank you. It seems clearer now. So
1. He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford. ----> These cigarettes are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is only about what *HE SMOKES and he can AFFORD.*
2. This cigarette is as expensive as any that he can afford. ----> This cigarette are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is not limited to what *HE SMOKES.*
3. He smokes as expensive a cigarette as any cigarette. ----> These cigarettes are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is only about what *HE SMOKES.*
4. This cigarette is as expensive as any cigarette. ----> This cigarette are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> Any cigarette*.

Does this understanding make sense?*


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> 1. He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford. ----> These cigarettes are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is only about what *HE SMOKES and he can AFFORD.*


Not "among". The cigarettes he smokes _are_ the most expensive he can afford. 


thetazuo said:


> 2. This cigarette is as expensive as any that he can afford. ----> This cigarette are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is not limited to what *HE SMOKES.*


This just means that this cigarette costs the same as any brand that he can afford. It might be the most expensive he can afford, or might be a lower-priced brand. 


thetazuo said:


> 3. He smokes as expensive a cigarette as any cigarette. ----> These cigarettes are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is only about what *HE SMOKES.*


I think you mean "He smokes as expensive a cigarette as any". This suggests he smokes the most expensive brand in the world. There might be others as expensive but none more so.


thetazuo said:


> 4. This cigarette is as expensive as any cigarette. ----> This cigarette are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> Any cigarette*.*


As above. _This cigarette is as expensive as any._


----------



## andrewg927

_(All of my writing will be in brackets, italicized and underlined - to distinguish from your writing)

(After reading all of these sentences, one thing that stood out to me: you cannot confuse these sentences together. They must be analyzed individually.)_

1. He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford. ----> These cigarettes are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is only about what *HE SMOKES and he can AFFORD. *_(Perfect understanding)_

2. This cigarette is as expensive as any that he can afford. ----> This cigarette are _(is)_ among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is not limited to what *HE SMOKES. *_(This sentence does not make sense. "any that he can afford" does not make sense.)
_
3. He smokes as expensive a cigarette as any cigarette. ----> These cigarettes are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is only about what *HE SMOKES. *_(This sentence does not make sense. "any cigarette" means there is no value attached)._

4. This cigarette is as expensive as any cigarette. ----> This cigarette are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> Any cigarette*. *_(The same problem like 2 and 3)._


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> Not "among". The cigarettes he smokes _are_ the most expensive he can afford.


Thank you. I think we are saying the same thing. He can afford  $10. Suppose he's bought ten packs of cigarette,  $10 each, and he smokes one pack today. The one are among the ten.


----------



## thetazuo

andrewg927 said:


> 2. This cigarette is as expensive as any that he can afford. ----> This cigarette are _(is)_ among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is not limited to what *HE SMOKES. *_(This sentence does not make sense. "any that he can afford" does not make sense.)
> _
> 3. He smokes as expensive a cigarette as any cigarette. ----> These cigarettes are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> It is only about what *HE SMOKES. *_(This sentence does not make sense. "any cigarette" means there is no value attached)._
> 
> 4. This cigarette is as expensive as any cigarette. ----> This cigarette are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford ----> Any cigarette*. *_(The same problem like 2 and 3)._


Thank you too. I didn't realize I invent so many nonsensical sentences!


----------



## thetazuo

andrewg927 said:


> "any that he can afford" does not make sense.)


Sorry, I meant to say "This cigarette is as expensive as any cigarette that he can afford". But I guess it still doesn't make sense, right?


----------



## andrewg927

thetazuo said:


> Sorry, I meant to say "This cigarette is as expensive as any cigarette that he can afford". But I guess it still doesn't make sense, right?



Correct.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you, andrew. So it doesn't makes sense because _there is no value attached?_ But if he can afford it, why it is valueless?


----------



## andrewg927

That's why it does not make sense. We don't know what cigarette that he can afford.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you! But if _"any cigarette" means there is no value attached,_ then the original sentence "He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford" doesn't make sense either, because I was told by others the sentence is equivalent to "He smokes as expensive a cigarette as *any cigarette* he can afford". So might there be other reasons that my versions don't make sense?


Thomas Tompion said:


> I think you should understand it as _He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* any other cigarette that he can afford.?_


----------



## andrewg927

I think it is better to open a new thread with this new sentence. That way people will get a chance to comment again and then it will be easier to know who said what and why.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I think we are saying the same thing.


No, we aren't.

You said:


andrewg927 said:


> These cigarettes are among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford


This sounds as if he smokes cigarettes of various brands and prices, and these particular cigarettes are towards the higher end of the price range. They are one of (among) the more expensive ones that he smokes.


----------



## thetazuo

A shame you don't think so.


Barque said:


> This sounds as if he smokes cigarettes of various brands and prices


It is very possible, though it is not an implication of this sentence.


Barque said:


> and these particular cigarettes are towards the higher end of the price range.


This is not necessarily the case. These particular cigarettes can vary significantly in price.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> It is very possible, though it is not an implication of this sentence.


You may have misunderstood. I'm talking of this sentence of yours:


andrewg927 said:


> This cigarette are _(is)_ among the most expensive that he smokes and he can afford


and was explaining why "among" isn't the right choice of word in the context.

When you say "among the most expensive that he smokes", the implication is that he smokes different brands of cigarettes, not just one.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> These particular cigarettes can vary significantly in price.


I haven't understood this by the way. When I said "particular cigarettes", I meant cigarettes of a particular brand (or type), for example Benson & Hedges Silver. It can have only one price.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> When you say "among the most expensive that he smokes", the implication is that he smokes different brands of cigarettes, not just one.


I don't think the idea "brand" is relevant here. My sentence treats these cigarettes as a group of tubes of paper without mentioning brands. I know my sentence is a twisted kind of expression, but in my sentence, cigarettes are more concrete things than abstract brands. So the word "among" works, as it were.


----------



## Barque

Then we're talking at cross-purposes. I'm pretty sure that everyone who's tried to answer your questions meant a specific brand/type of cigarette when they referred to "as expensive a cigarette as he can afford" or "the most expensive cigarettes he could afford". What else could it mean? If two cigarettes cost different amounts, they are obviously different brands, or different types under the same brand. Marlboro vs. Benson & Hedges, or B&H Gold vs. B&H Silver.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I think I understand you. I think there are two understandings:
1) If we treat the cigarettes in the sentence as tubes without thinking of brands, then we can say “among the most expensive ones he smokes and can afford” because it makes no sense to think he only smokes one cigarette in his life;
2) If we treat the cigarettes in the sentence as brands, then we can’t say “among xxx” because the sentence doesn’t carry the implication that he smokes other brands than the one he smokes and can afford
Do you think this thinking is right?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> 1) If we treat the cigarettes in the sentence as tubes without thinking of brands,


I'm sorry; I'm unable to follow your line of thinking. If we treat all cigarettes as just "tubes" without thinking of brands, they'll all be the same and should also cost the same. The reason different cigarettes cost different amounts is because they are of different brands/types/forms. 


thetazuo said:


> 2) If we treat the cigarettes in the sentence as brands,


If we treat them as being of different brands, then the words "among the most expensive ones" can only mean "among the most expensive brands/types". That means he smokes a range of cigarettes, of different brands and types and probably of different prices too.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> I'm sorry; I'm unable to follow your line of thinking. If we treat all cigarettes as just "tubes" without thinking of brands, they'll all be the same and should also cost the same. The reason different cigarettes cost different amounts is because they are of different brands/types/forms.


Sorry, by “tube” I mean you pick any stick of cigarette from a pack, not refer to raw materials.
It just occurred to me: if the cigarette example equals “He smokes as expensive a brand as he can afford”, then does the latter equal “He smokes as expensive a brand as *any brand* he can afford”?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> Sorry, by “tube” I mean you pick any stick of cigarette from a pack, not refer to raw materials.


I wasn't referring to "raw materials" and I'm not sure what you mean by that. My point was that when we speak of cigarettes that are expensive or cigarettes that a person can afford, the implication is that we're speaking of brands or specific types of cigarettes. If someone says "I smoke these cigarettes, but not those because they are too expensive", he means "I smoke this brand/type but not that one".


thetazuo said:


> “He smokes as expensive a brand as he can afford”


This means: _He smokes the most expensive brand he can afford. _


thetazuo said:


> “He smokes as expensive a brand as *any brand* he can afford”?


This sentence's meaning is unclear. "Any brand he can afford" can include multiple brands, from the most expensive one he can afford to the cheapest available.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. If “He smokes as expensive a brand as he can afford” is not the same as “He smokes as expensive a brand as *any brand* he can afford”, then why others say I should understand it (the original cigarette example) as _He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* any other cigarette that he can afford.? _
And you mean what andrew said is wrong?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> If “He smokes as expensive a brand as he can afford” is not the same as “He smokes as expensive a brand as *any brand* he can afford”,


As I said earlier, the second example sentence (underlined above) is unclear.


thetazuo said:


> then why others say I should understand it (the original cigarette example) as _He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as* any other cigarette that he can afford.? _


I suggest you address your question to whoever said that directly. I'm not sure what to make of that sentence. Any cigarette he can afford can range from the cheapest cigarette in the market to the most expensive cigarette he can afford. (It's essentially the same as "He smokes as expensive a brand as any brand he can afford", a sentence you'd asked about.)


thetazuo said:


> And you mean what andrew said is wrong?


I haven't commented on anything Andrew said. I was replying to your posts.


----------



## thetazuo

Thank you. I see. Then could you explain why in the pirate example the word "any" is implied where in the cigarette example we don't read that way? I mean, in terms of grammar.


----------



## Barque

Are you referring to these two sentences?


thetazuo said:


> Euron. Crow’s Eye, they call him, as black a pirate *as* ever raised a sail.





thetazuo said:


> He smokes as expensive a cigarette *as (=that)* he can afford.


----------



## thetazuo

Yes.


----------



## Barque

_As black a pirate as ever raised a sail = As evil a pirate as any pirate who ever lived. _
He was as evil as the most evil pirate. There was no pirate more evil than him.

_As expensive a cigarette as he can afford = The most expensive brand/type of cigarette he can afford._
The brand he smoked was the most expensive of those he could afford. There may have been more expensive brands, but he couldn't afford them.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> _As black a pirate as ever raised a sail = As evil a pirate as any pirate who ever lived. _
> He was as evil as the most evil pirate. There was no pirate more evil than him.
> 
> _As expensive a cigarette as he can afford = The most expensive brand/type of cigarette he can afford._
> The brand he smoked was the most expensive of those he could afford. There may have been more expensive brands, but he couldn't afford them.


Thank you. But this is just a repetition of what others have already said. I think in the pirate example, "as" is a conjunction while in the cigarette example, "as" is a pronoun. This explains why the cigarette example doesn't imply any (otherwise you'd make a clumsy sentence).
And I think if "any" is implied, then the "among" idea is expressed accordingly. Make sense?


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> But this is just a repetition of what others have already said.


I gave you the answer I thought was correct. Are you saying you wanted a different answer? If it's a repetition, that should reassure you.


thetazuo said:


> I think in the pirate example, "as" is a conjunction while in the cigarette example, "as" is a pronoun.


In the phrase "As X as B", it appears the first "as" is a conjunction (in the same manner, see definition 5 in the WR dictionary) and the second is a pronoun (see definition 11 in the WR dictionary). This applies to both examples.


thetazuo said:


> This explains why the cigarette example doesn't imply any (otherwise you'd make a clumsy sentence).


I haven't understood this. I think I've said it before but the two examples aren't exactly parallel.


thetazuo said:


> then the "among" idea is expressed accordingly.


Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're referring to what you said in #62, I believe that isn't a correct interpretation.


----------



## thetazuo

Barque said:


> In the phrase "As X as B", it appears the first "as" is a conjunction (in the same manner, see definition 5 in the WR dictionary) and the second is a pronoun (see definition 11 in the WR dictionary). This applies to both examples.


I still think only in the cigarette example does the second "as" function as a pronoun. In the pirate example, the second "as" is still a conjunction, according to my dictionary. Otherwise the two example would be parallel.


Barque said:


> Again, I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you're referring to what you said in #62, I believe that isn't a correct interpretation.


What I said in #62 might make sense, otherwise I don't understand why Andrew said my understanding is perfect in #61. But now I think it is probably wrong.


----------



## Barque

thetazuo said:


> I still think only in the cigarette example does the second "as" function as a pronoun. In the pirate example, the second "as" is still a conjunction, according to my dictionary. Otherwise the two example would be parallel.


You're entitled to your opinion, but your conclusion that they would be parallel if "as" was the same in both doesn't follow. Having the same structure doesn't mean two sentences should be interpreted in the same fashion.


----------



## kentix

_He is as evil a pirate as ever existed._

He is *the most evil* pirate who ever existed (at a level all by himself) *or* he's *in a tie* with other pirates who are/were as evil as him.

The main idea: *no pirate* in the history of the world has ever been *more evil*.

(But there is no theoretical limit on the evil. A pirate could later exist who is more evil.)

_He smokes as expensive a cigarette as he can afford.
_
He smokes *the most expensive* cigarette that exists in _his_ world.* Whatever cigarette he chooses is either at a cost level all by itself *or* it's *in a tie* with other (types/brands of) cigarettes that are also at that cost level.

The main idea: *no cigarette* that he would buy would ever be less expensive.

* Anything higher than what he can afford doesn't "exist" in his world and can never be exceeded, unlike the pirate example.)


----------

