# I didn’t appoint him because he was my brother.[scope of negation]



## grammar-in-use

Hello everyone,

*I didn’t appoint him because he was my brother*.

As we know, this sentence can be ambiguous between (1) and (2) below:
(1). I didn’t appoint him, because he was my brother.
=The fact that he was my brother is the reason why I didn’t appoint him.

(2). I didn’t appoint him just because he was my brother.
=*It is not the case that I appointed him just because he was my brother*.
=I did appoint him, but for some other reason.

I’m wondering if the sentence in question can mean (3) below (as it can in Chinese):
(3). I didn’t appoint him, not because he was my brother but for some other reason.
=The reason why I didn’t appoint him is not that he was my brother but for some other reason (like that he wasn’t able to do the job.)

If not, then how can we express the meaning of (3), using a single sentence?
In addition, in the Chinese mind, “*It is not the case that I appointed him just because he was my brother*” could be ambiguous between (2) and (3) above. I don’t know if it is also the case in English.
I'd really appreciate any help and comments.


----------



## entangledbank

No, it can't mean (3). We'd need to be more explicit, as in your explanation.


----------



## grammar-in-use

entangledbank said:


> No, it can't mean (3). We'd need to be more explicit, as in your explanation.


Thank you very much for confirming it.
Neither can "*It is not the case that I appointed him just because he was my brother*", right?


----------



## lingobingo

In short, yes, there are two possible readings of the original sentence – one of which means the he was appointed and one of which means that he wasn’t (although that one  really requires a comma). 

But in the second of those meanings,* I didn’t appoint him, because he was my brother* and *I didn’t appoint him, not because he was my brother* cannot possibly mean the same as each other!


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> In short, yes, there are two possible readings of the original sentence – one of which means the he was appointed and one of which means that he wasn’t (although that one  really requires a comma).
> 
> But in the second of those meanings,* I didn’t appoint him, because he was my brother* and *I didn’t appoint him, not because he was my brother* cannot possibly mean the same as each other!


Thank you!
Simply put, the original sentence has only two readings, right? But you know what, it would have three different readings in Chinese.
It could be understood as:


lingobingo said:


> I didn’t appoint him, not because he was my brother.



"*It is not the case that I appointed him just because he was my brother*" would imply, in Chinese, "I appointed him" or "I didn't appoint him", but in English, it only means the former, right?


----------



## lingobingo

Adding “it is not the case that” makes no difference to the meaning of the clause follows it. I find it hard to believe that your version with “just” translates into two diametrically opposed meanings in Chinese, but if you say so……


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> Adding “it is not the case that” makes no difference to the meaning of the clause follows it. I find it hard to believe that your version with “just” translates into two diametrically opposed meanings in Chinese, but if you say so……


The Chinese language is much more heavily context-dependent than English.
There's no tense, no subject-verb agreement, no verb conjugation whatsoever, etc.
A lot of times, different subjects can be totally omitted, with only VPs or NPs present, but we still know what you are talking about and who did what to whom. Chinese learners of English always feel overwhelmed by complex changes of the English language form. For example, in Chinese we would just say "he *go* there yesterday", "he *go* there tomorrow", "he *stay* there for ten days (for both "he *has been staying* there for ten days now" and "he *stayed* there for ten days"), and so on.


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> In short, yes, there are two possible readings of the original sentence – one of which means the he was appointed and one of which means that he wasn’t (although that one really requires a comma).


Could "*I didn’t appoint him because he was my brother*" mean "Just because he was my brother it doesn't mean I appointed him"? (In Chinese, it could.)
Does the latter mean he wasn't appointed? (You know what, the latter itself could be ambiguous in Chinese between "he *was* appointed" and "he *wasn't* appointed".)


----------



## tunaafi

I suggest you stop thinking about what is possible in Chinese, and concentrate on what the English words mean.
*
I didn't appoint him because he was my brother* suggests that you did appoint him; the reason was not that he was your brother.
*I didn't appoint him, because he was my brother* suggests that you did not appoint him, the reason was that he was your brother.


----------



## grammar-in-use

tunaafi said:


> I suggest you stop thinking about what is possible in Chinese, and concentrate on what the English words mean.
> 
> *I didn't appoint him because he was my brother* suggests that you did appoint him; the reason was not that he was your brother.
> *I didn't appoint him, because he was my brother* suggests that you did not appoint him, the reason was that he was your brother.


There’s only the two readings, nothing else, right?
Thank you!


----------



## tunaafi

grammar-in-use said:


> There’s only the two readings, nothing else, right?



There are all sorts of subtle meanings that can be given by stress and intonation in speech, but the meanings that we have suggested in this thread are the two clear ones.


----------



## Cagey

This thread concerns a sentence that might present a similar ambiguity: She didn't attend the meeting because she wanted to.

You may find it helpful.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Cagey said:


> This thread concerns a sentence that might present a similar ambiguity: She didn't attend the meeting because she wanted to.
> 
> You may find it helpful.


Thank you very much, Cagey!


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> In short, yes, there are two possible readings of the original sentence – one of which means the he was appointed and one of which means that he wasn’t (although that one  really requires a comma).



Can the original sentence “I *didn’t* appoint him *because* he was my brother” be understood as “*Although* he was my brother, I didn’t appoint him”?


----------



## Loob

grammar-in-use said:


> Can the original sentence “I *didn’t* appoint him *because* he was my brother” be understood as “*Although* he was my brother, I didn’t appoint him”?


No.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Loob said:


> No.


Thank you!


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> Can the original sentence “I *didn’t* appoint him *because* he was my brother” be understood as “*Although* he was my brother, I didn’t appoint him”?


It would be understood as "I appointed him although he was my brother."


----------



## kalamazoo

I think you need to know whether the brother did get appointed, in which case "I didn't appoint him because he was my brother" would mean something like "Yes, I appointed him, but the reason was not because he is my brother" or whether the brother did not get appointed, in which case "I didn't appoint him because he was my brother" would mean something like "The reason I didn't appoint him is because he is my brother."


----------



## SevenDays

It shouldn't come as a surprise that _ambiguity _is part of language; that's why context matters. In the real world, in a real conversation, context and speech intonation help us understand the actual meaning of _*I didn’t appoint him because he was my brother*. _


----------



## grammar-in-use

Edinburgher said:


> It would be understood as "I appointed him although he was my brother."


Thanks. Then it makes sense to say “I appointed him *although* he was my brother, but *not because* he was my brother”, doesn’t it?


----------



## grammar-in-use

kalamazoo said:


> I think you need to know whether the brother did get appointed, in which case "I didn't appoint him because he was my brother" would mean something like "Yes, I appointed him, but the reason was not because he is my brother" or whether the brother did not get appointed, in which case "I didn't appoint him because he was my brother" would mean something like "The reason I didn't appoint him is because he is my brother."


Thank you for your clear explanation.👍
Can it have a third reading? Like “Just because he is my brother doesn’t mean I will appoint him; I actually didn’t appoint him.”?


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> Thanks. Then it makes sense to say “I appointed him *although* he was my brother, but *not because* he was my brother”, doesn’t it?


Yes, you can think of _although_ and _because_ as being opposites.


kalamazoo said:


> I think you need to know whether the brother did get appointed


No, you don't.  That's the whole point of the discussion in this thread.  Of course if you do know, it helps you to understand why that set of words can have these different meanings. The trick is how to work out from the speaker's intonation (or from the writer's punctuation) which of the two meanings is intended, if you don't know.


grammar-in-use said:


> Can it have a third reading? Like “Just because he is my brother doesn’t mean I will appoint him; I actually didn’t appoint him.”?


That question is equivalent to what you asked in #14.  No, it can't mean that.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Edinburgher said:


> That question is equivalent to what you asked in #14.  No, it can't mean that.


OK, I see. Thank you!
The trick is that, although the original sentence can’t have a third reading as I suggested, other sentences with the “*not*...*because*” construction in them can easily be interpreted in ways other than the two ones above. For example,
(2). “I *wouldn’t* quit my job *because* maybe I could get a better one. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”

Here, I think sentence (2) can be understood as “I *wouldn’t* quit my job *although* I could get a better one.”, as opposed to post #14, where “I *didn’t* appoint him *because* he was my brother” cannot be understood as “I *didn’t* appoint him *although* he was my brother”.
What I’m asking about is whether the  “*not*...*because*” construction has at least three different ways of interpreting.
 Am I right?


----------



## Loob

You would interpret *I wouldn’t quit my job because maybe I could get a better one* as
_I wouldn’t {quit my job because maybe I could get a better one}. _
In other words, the idea is:
_Something I wouldn't do is quit my job because maybe I could get a better one._

It's similar to one meaning of _*I didn't appoint him because he was my brother *
=  I didn't {appoint him because he was my brother}
= Something I didn't do was appoint him because he was my brother.

"_Although" doesn't come into it.


----------



## Edinburgher

“I *wouldn’t* quit my job *because* maybe I could get a better one." is not idiomatic and its meaning is unclear.
What might work instead is “I wouldn't quit my job *just *because I *might be able to* get a better one."
Adding the bit about the bird in the hand helps us to understand what you want it to mean, but it doesn't really mean that. I take your meaning to be that although you could get a better job, you would need to actually obtain a formal offer of that other job first, before quitting your current job. In other words, you want to make sure you catch at least one of those two birds in the bush before you let the one in your hand fly away. 

Your “I *wouldn’t* quit my job *although* I could get a better one.” not only doesn't express your meaning, but it doesn't work at all. Even if you change "wouldn't" to "won't", the meaning becomes that you don't want a better job, you prefer the one you already have, perhaps because your colleagues have become good friends.

(cross-posted)


----------



## grammar-in-use

Loob said:


> It's similar to one meaning of _*I didn't appoint him because he was my brother *
> =  I didn't {appoint him because he was my brother}
> = Something I didn't do was appoint him because he was my brother._


Yes! That’s exactly what I have been trying to convey. Thank you for that.👍
So, what all the discussions boil down to is that the original sentence “I *didn’t* appoint him *because* he was my brother” can at least have *three* different readings, as shown in post #18 and your post #24. 

That’s why I asked in post #21 “Can it have a third reading?”  Now the answer to the question seems to be “Yes, it can.” 
Is that right?


----------



## Loob

grammar-in-use said:


> “I *didn’t* appoint him *because* he was my brother” can at least have *three* different readings, as shown in post #18 and your post #24.


My post 24 doesn't suggest that "I didn’t appoint him because he was my brother” can have three meanings, grammar-in-use.

I see only two ways of construing it:
_1. I didn’t appoint him {because he was my brother}_​_= I didn't appoint him: the reason was that he was my brother._​_= Because he was my brother, I didn't appoint him._​​_2. I didn’t {appoint him because he was my brother}_​_=  Something I didn't do was appoint him because he was my brother. _​_= I appointed him, not because he was my brother, but for another reason._​_= The reason I appointed him was not because he was my brother. _​


----------



## grammar-in-use

Loob said:


> My post 24 doesn't suggest that "I didn’t appoint him because he was my brother” can have three meanings, grammar-in-use.
> 
> I see only two ways of construing it:
> _1. I didn’t appoint him {because he was my brother}_​_= I didn't appoint him: the reason was that he was my brother._​_= Because he was my brother, I didn't appoint him._​​_2. I didn’t {appoint him because he was my brother}_​_=  Something I didn't do was appoint him because he was my brother. _​_= I appointed him, not because he was my brother, but for another reason._​_= The reason I appointed him was not because he was my brother. _​


Let’s consider the following two opposites: 
(1). He is my brother. *Because of* this, I appointed him.
(2). He is my brother. *In spite of* this, I didn’t appoint him.

The two sentences make sense (in different ways), don’t they?
Then how would you express the idea of (2) using the “*not…because*” construction?


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> Then how would you express the idea of (2) using the “*not…because*” construction?


You can't.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Edinburgher said:


> You can't.


Oh really? 
We would be able to express the three ideas in one sentence in Chinese.😄


----------



## Loob

Grammar-in-use, you asked in post 1 of this thread whether the topic sentence had a further meaning beyond


grammar-in-use said:


> (1). I didn’t appoint him, because he was my brother.
> =The fact that he was my brother is the reason why I didn’t appoint him.
> 
> (2). I didn’t appoint him just because he was my brother.
> =*It is not the case that I appointed him just because he was my brother*.
> =I did appoint him, but for some other reason.


You have been told over and over again that it doesn't.

Perhaps it's time for you to start believing us?


----------



## grammar-in-use

Loob said:


> Perhaps it's time for you to start believing us?


Sure I believe you natives.
It’s just that some “not…because” sentences do not fit into the two interpretation patterns as indicated above.
For example, 
(3). Unfortunately, household expenses don’t go away just because you’re in hospital or out of work. (from the Longman dictionary)

It doesn’t mean either “household expenses don’t go away, {just because you’re in hospital…}” or “household expenses go away NOT because you’re in hospital BUT for another reason”. 
Then it seems to fall into a third category. 
Then I’ve been trying to squeeze “I didn’t appoint him because he was my brother” into this third category.
That’s why I keep asking about it. I’ll try to find more examples of this third type of “not…because” sentences.


----------



## Edinburgher

"Just because" is not the same as "because".  That is why (3) is not a good example of the kind of "not...because" construction we've been discussing.

_Household expenses don’t go away just because you’re in hospital or out of work._
This means that being in hospital or out of work is not enough reason to make house hold expenses go away; household expenses keep going even when you're in hospital or out of work.


----------



## DonnyB

grammar-in-use said:


> Sure I believe you natives.
> It’s just that some “not…because” sentences do not fit into the two interpretation patterns as indicated above.


You originally came up with a third interpretation for your original scenario, which was:


grammar-in-use said:


> I’m wondering if the sentence in question can mean (3) below (as it can in Chinese):
> (3). I didn’t appoint him, not because he was my brother but for some other reason.
> =The reason why I didn’t appoint him is not that he was my brother but for some other reason (like that he wasn’t able to do the job.)
> 
> If not, then how can we express the meaning of (3), using a single sentence?


The problem there as I see it is that in version (3) you've got two negatives:
(a) you didn't appoint him
and
(b) the reason was not that he was your brother.

So what I _think_ you need to do, if you want to convey that idea in the original sentence is to insert another negative.  Which will give you:
*"I didn’t not appoint him because he was my brother".* 
It's a bit clumsy and not especially idiomatic, but it is, I would say, the reason why the sentence otherwise only has meanings (1) and (2).


----------



## se16teddy

I find this area fascinating but kinda mind-numbing, very difficult to analyse.
You don't have to go as far away from English as Chinese to meet this kind of incongruity. There is a good example from French here:
< French removed.  Cagey, moderator >
Literal translation:
It is not because you have bacteria in your body that you are going to get ill.
Means:
You have bacteria in your body; but this does not necessarily mean that you are going to get ill.
Or:
Just because you have bacteria in your body, this does not necessarily mean that you are going to get ill.


----------



## grammar-in-use

se16teddy said:


> You have bacteria in your body; but this does not necessarily mean that you are going to get ill.
> Or:
> Just because you have bacteria in your body, this does not necessarily mean that you are going to get ill.


Thank you!
Can I express the above idea using the “not…because” construction, like “You are *not* going to get ill *because* you have bacteria in your body.”?
If so, then that’ll be what I’d call a third interpretation pattern of “not…because” constructions.

Or, let me ask another way, what would you mean when saying  “You are *not* going to get ill *because* you have bacteria in your body.”?
Do you natives mean  “You are *not* going to get ill; this is *because* you have bacteria in your body.”? Or  “You are going to get ill NOT *because* you have bacteria in your body but for another reason.”? Or otherwise, as above?


----------



## lingobingo

When *because* follows a negative construction, the meaning can be ambiguous. In the sentence “he did not go because he was ill”, for example, it is not clear whether it means either “the reason he did not go was that he was ill” or “being ill wasn't the reason for him going; there was another reason”. Some usage guides recommend using a comma when the first interpretation is intended (he did not go, because he was ill) and no comma where the second interpretation is intended, but in general it is probably safest to try to avoid such constructions altogether.
(LEXICO)

As for the third interpretation that you think exists, it doesn’t, in my view. You’re trying to equate the intrinsic ambiguity of more or less any negative statement followed by a *because* clause (as described in the quote above) with uses of the phrase “*just* *because*”. But your proposed example in #36 _does not work_ without the addition of “*just*”, which suggests that you haven’t quite grasped the difference. 

One notable example of this expression is the saying: 
“Just because you’re paranoid, [it] doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you!”


----------



## Andygc

grammar-in-use said:


> *I didn’t appoint him because he was my brother*.
> 
> As we know, this sentence can be ambiguous


Why do we have these long threads based on non-existent ambiguity? The King of Ruritania doesn't walk into a room in his palace and say, out of the blue, "I didn’t appoint him because he was my brother". He walks into a room full of courtiers who know that he did or did not appoint his brother as Ambassador to the Court of Silesia. There is no ambiguity. If he didn't appoint him, it's because he is his brother. If he did appoint him, the next sentence will be "I appointed him because he speaks fluent Silesian, and he is going to do an excellent job of making Ruritania great again". As others have said, there's no other meanings. No sentence exists in real life without context and background to contribute to its intended meaning.


----------



## lingobingo

Or (as mentioned in the Lexico quote in #37) you could just add a comma for clarification in cases where the negative refers to the action itself, not the assumed reason for it.

I didn’t appoint him, because he was my brother.


----------



## grammar-in-use

lingobingo said:


> Or (as mentioned in the Lexico quote in #37) you could just add a comma for clarification in cases where the negative refers to the action itself, not the assumed reason for it.
> 
> I didn’t appoint him, because he was my brother.


As I see it, the negative can sometimes refer to both the action and the assumed reason for it. 
Please consider these examples:
*Don’t* scamp your work *because* you are pressed for time.
Trump Tuesday sent a clear signal that he is *not* going to limit his policies *because* of the threat of long-term deficits.

In a nutshell, the focus of negation can be on (1) the action itself, or (2) the assumed reason for it, or (3) both the action and the reason.


----------



## Edinburgher

grammar-in-use said:


> Please consider these examples:
> *Don’t* scamp your work *because* you are pressed for time.
> Trump Tuesday sent a clear signal that he is *not* going to limit his policies *because* of the threat of long-term deficits.
> 
> In a nutshell, the focus of negation can be on (1) the action itself, or (2) the assumed reason for it, or (3) both the action and the reason.


I wouldn't put it like that.  The focus of the negation is always only on the action.

In both these examples, "not" applies to "scamp" and to "limit", although of course the idea is that you should not let the stated reason be the cause for the action.  Being pressed for time should not cause you to scamp your work.  The threat of long-term deficits is not going to cause Trump to limit his policies.


----------



## grammar-in-use

Edinburgher said:


> I wouldn't put it like thath.  The focus of the negation is always only on the action.
> 
> In both these examples, "not" applies to "scamp" and to "limit", although of course the idea is that you should not let the stated reason be the cause for the action.  Being pressed for time should not cause you to scamp your work.  The threat of long-term deficits is not going to cause Trump to limit his policies.


Thank you!
Then how about “I *didn’t* come here *just* *because* I wanted to see her”?


----------



## Edinburgher

Remember that "just because" is not the same as "because".

"Just" means "only" here.  Again the "not" focuses on the action, but in combination with the reason.  Although the action  (my coming here) did take place, my wanting to see her was not the only reason for it.

The "not" negates the whole statement, i.e. it negates what would otherwise have been "I came here just because I wanted to see her."


----------

