# <so as to> make a lexical ambiguity account unlikely



## JungKim

A paper on 'Modality' has this sentence (page 10, line 221):


> _However, this multiplicity of modal meanings is common *enough *cross-linguistically, and in languages from different families, *so as to* make a lexical ambiguity account unlikely: it is highly improbable that the same lexical accident should be found in language after language. _



Normally, 'so as to' is used to describe a purpose. But this 'so as to' doesn't seem to describe such a meaning.
Rather, it seems to mean just a 'to-infinitive' that modifies *enough*.
_...this multiplicity of modal meanings is common *enough *cross-linguistically, and in languages from different families, *to* make a lexical ambiguity account unlikely..._

If my interpretation of 'so as to' here is correct, why is it used like this?


----------



## bennymix

W-R; R-H unabr

*19
so as:*

with the result or purpose:   _to turn up the volume of the radio so as to drown out the noise from the next apartment._
_============================

"with the result" or "with the consequence that"      _with some re wording, capture the meaning:

_However, this multiplicity of modal meanings is common *enough *cross-linguistically, [...] {with the consequence that} a lexical-ambiguity account {is made} unlikely...._

The plain infinitive can mean this or other things;  it's very broad.    Note the same applies to the phrase "In order to"-- one could argue that "in order" is unnecessary and can easily be dropped.    But there is a loss of precision.

==
See discussion at  To, in order to, so as to


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> W-R; R-H unabr
> 
> *19
> so as:*
> 
> with the result or purpose:   _to turn up the volume of the radio so as to drown out the noise from the next apartment._
> _============================
> 
> "with the result" or "with the consequence that"      _with some re wording, capture the meaning:
> 
> _However, this multiplicity of modal meanings is common *enough *cross-linguistically, [...] {with the consequence that} a lexical-ambiguity account {is made} unlikely...._


Are you saying that this 'so as to' means "with the result" and not "with the purpose"?
Even though the RH dictionary says 'so as to' can mean 'with the result', all the other dictionaries that I know of define 'so as to' as meaning a purpose (e.g., 'in order to'). And even the example in the RH dictionary I think uses the purpose meaning.



bennymix said:


> The plain infinitive can mean this or other things;  it's very broad.    Note the same applies to the phrase "In order to"-- one could argue that "in order" is unnecessary and can easily be dropped.    But there is a loss of precision.
> 
> ==
> See discussion at  To, in order to, so as to


True, using 'in order to'/'so as to' is more precise than simply using 'to', but can that be a reason to use 'so as to' after 'enough'?
I've never seen the construction 'enough...so as to' or 'enough...in order to', unless 'enough' and 'so as to/in order to' are totally unrelated.


----------



## bennymix

'enough' is related to 'so as to'.    I did see the situation you describe.   Most dictionaries and websites mention purpose, and this is mostly true, but does not fit your example.

I will make you a new sentence that's more commonplace.   My cousin received a great deal of money at his graduation party, enough so as to make the question of how he could afford the tuition for his first year of university irrelevant.

Here is an example from a book on the 'net:
*Toward Diversity and Emancipation: (Re-)Narrating Space in the ...*
https://books.google.ca › books
Marcel Thoene - 2016 - ‎Literary Criticism
... the idea of independence was pervasive _enough so as to_ erupt into an all-out revolution, bringing about a paradoxical topological situation between colonies and empire....

===
*Toward Diversity and Emancipation: (Re-)Narrating Space in the Contemporary American Novel.*


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> I will make you a new sentence that's more commonplace.   My cousin received a great deal of money at his graduation party, *enough so as to *make the question of how he could afford the tuition for his first year of university irrelevant.
> ...
> ... the idea of independence was pervasive _*enough so as to*_ erupt into an all-out revolution, bringing about a paradoxical topological situation between colonies and empire....


In both your examples, I don't know what you can achieve by inserting _*so as*_, which seems to me redundant at best and even confusing.
I mean, does either of the examples have any contextual reason that you and the author choose to insert _*so as*_ that doesn't exist in the normal _*enough to*_ construction?

Now, I've just found this post by a BE speaker who says that this 'enough so as to' doesn't work:
_I don't think I'm good enough *so as to* distinguish many US accents. _


----------



## DonnyB

Just sticking to the original example here (*so as to* avoid wandering about all over the place ) it seems to me from my admittedly limited understanding of it, that it fits the definition benny has quoted - _with the result or purpose._

I'd construe it as meaning_ "with the result that a lexical ambiguity account is unlikely" ._


----------



## JungKim

I'm curious where this 'result' meaning of 'so as to' came from. 
If this meaning is legitimate, why is it that no other dictionaries list it as the meaning of the phrase?
Even the Cambridge Grammar by Pullum says that it only has the purpose meaning.
If someone having access to OED could show me what OED says about 'so as to', I'd appreciate it.


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> In both your examples, I don't know what you can achieve by inserting _*so as*_, which seems to me redundant at best and even confusing.
> I mean, does either of the examples have any contextual reason that you and the author choose to insert _*so as*_ that doesn't exist in the normal _*enough to*_ construction?
> 
> Now, I've just found this post by a BE speaker who says that this 'enough so as to' doesn't work:
> _I don't think I'm good enough *so as to* distinguish many US accents. _



I'm just describing things, Jung Kim.   Giving a native speaker's views and explanations.   If you want to prescribe, to set standards and tell Valentine Hacquard quoted in the OP he's using improper English, that's up to you.


----------



## bennymix

Even the Cambridge Grammar by Pullum says that it only has the purpose meaning 

I highly doubt that.   Quote the text that says 'only'.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> I'm just describing things, Jung Kim.   Giving a native speaker's views and explanations.   If you want to prescribe, to set standards and tell Valentine Hacquard quoted in the OP he's using improper English, that's up to you.


Then, I think _either _you should be able to distinguish the OP's sentence and your examples that allow 'enough...so as to...' on the one hand  and the sentence that I quoted from the earlier thread on the other hand, _or _you don't agree with the BE speaker in that thread.
Which is it?


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Even the Cambridge Grammar by Pullum says that it only has the purpose meaning
> 
> I highly doubt that.   Quote the text that says 'only'.


I didn't quote the text from CGEL; that's the summary of what CGEL said over several sections.
But I can assure you that CGEL mentions 'so as to' only in the purpose section but never in the result section.


----------



## DonnyB

JungKim said:


> Then, I think _either _you should be able to distinguish the OP's sentence and your examples that allow 'enough...so as to...' on the one hand  and the sentence that I quoted from the earlier thread on the other hand, _or _you don't agree with the BE speaker in that thread.
> Which is it?


Well, two of us have given you our interpretation of what the phrase _*"so as to* make a lexical ambiguity account unlikely"_ implies in the sentence you gave us.

If you don't agree with it, then can I suggest you either contact the author who wrote it and ask him/her why they used it in a way which doesn't accord with the dictionary definitions you've found, or alternatively search through the many, many previous forum threads on "so as to" in the hope of finding clarification?


----------



## JungKim

DonnyB said:


> If you don't agree with it,


I didn't say I don't agree with it, and frankly I don't even think my own opinion even matters. If it did, I wouldn't be wasting time (mine and yours) asking around here. 

Do you think I was asking too much when I asked for some clarification in post #10?


----------



## DonnyB

JungKim said:


> Do you think I was asking too much when I asked for some clarification in post #10?


I'm afraid I think it's asking a bit much to expect people to examine examples from other forum threads to see if they do or don't agree with other peoples' answers to questions from different, unrelated contexts.  Sorry.


----------



## Loob

I'm not sure I'm answering the question - I just wanted to say that I find "enough ... so as to" decidedly odd.


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> In both your examples, I don't know what you can achieve by inserting _*so as*_, which seems to me redundant at best and even confusing.
> I mean, does either of the examples have any contextual reason that you and the author choose to insert _*so as*_ that doesn't exist in the normal _*enough to*_ construction?
> 
> Now, I've just found this post by a BE speaker who says that this 'enough so as to' doesn't work:
> _I don't think I'm good enough *so as to* distinguish many US accents. _



This is quite irrelevant, since the sentence rejected is not like the ones we are discussing.   The X'd sentence, I agree--and I bet Donny does too--is defective.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> This is quite irrelevant, since the sentence rejected is not like the ones we are discussing.   The X'd sentence, I agree--and I bet Donny does too--is defective.


Then, the question remains how you're going to distinguish the X'd sentence from the OP and your examples.
If you don't know how to articulate the difference, you could just say so.
If you do know how, I don't know why you're not doing it.


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> I didn't quote the text from CGEL; that's the summary of what CGEL said over several sections.
> But I can assure you that CGEL mentions 'so as to' only in the purpose section but never in the result section.



Logic, Jung Kim.   First, you've conceded the CGEL does not say  (your words)   it only has the purpose meaning  

What you're saying is like this.   "My lab dog is unfriendly, but how can that be?   In my _Book of Dogs,_ the lab is only listed in the 'Friendly Dogs' section."
====

Let me make one last attempt to explain the plausibility of the use in your example written by Mr.  Hacquard.   "So" often introduces a consequence.

B1 "George ran the first heat at top speed, so he had little energy for the final race."     Compare this with the more eloquent version (mine).

B2 George's expenditure of energy in the first heat was so great as to render him incapable of finishing in a top spot of the finals.

I wonder if Loob will find this sentence odd?     Please note that Donny, British, and I, American, have agreed on the 'consequence' usage for some examples.

ADDED:   You will note that B2 is very close to B3, below, in meaning:

B3:  George's expenditure of energy in the first heat was draining enough, in the circumstances, so as to ruin his chances of finishing in a top spot of the finals.  {revised slightly}


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> In both your examples, I don't know what you can achieve by inserting _*so as*_, which seems to me redundant at best and even confusing.
> I mean, does either of the examples have any contextual reason that you and the author choose to insert _*so as*_ that doesn't exist in the normal _*enough to*_ construction?
> 
> Now, I've just found this post by a BE speaker who says that this 'enough so as to' doesn't work:
> _I don't think I'm good enough *so as to* distinguish many US accents. _



Let's be clear, Jung Kim.  In the OP you gave an example by Mr. Hacquard.   

OP:  _this multiplicity of modal meanings is common *enough *cross-linguistically... *so as to* make a lexical ambiguity account unlikely:_

More recently I gave this published example

B old (Thoene):  the idea of independence was pervasive _*enough so as to*_ erupt into an all-out revolution, 

You ask me to distinguish this (call it "B old") from the example rejected 15 years ago by another poster in another thread, namely,

_{Old thread, post by E J} I don't think I'm good enough *so as to* distinguish many US accents. _

If  you refer to that thread, you see that the poster is taking cases where 'so as to' means 'so that I can'.   This is about ability and intention.   Notice the agent involved in the 'distinguish' verb is the same (that is, a person) as earlier in the sentence.

Notice that B old does not have an agent,  nor, of course, is an agent mentioned regarding the erupting.   It's very impersonal.   The same applies to the OP.  Two events/situations are discussed and Mr. Hacquard says that the first (multiplicity) leads to the second (lexical account being unlikely) as a consequence.


----------



## Loob

bennymix said:


> B2 George's expenditure of energy in the first heat was so great as to render him incapable of finishing in a top spot of the finals.
> 
> I wonder if Loob will find this sentence odd?


No, the "so great as to" part doesn't seem at all odd to me (though other parts do, a bit...).

I do find your Thoene example odd. But then Thoene is not a native speaker of English, and the sentence you quote was a translation.

I repeat:


Loob said:


> I just wanted to say that I find "enough ... so as to" decidedly odd.



Edit
Perhaps I should be clearer: I find the Valentine Hacquard sentence quoted in post 1 decidedly odd.

(She's a _she_, by the way, not a _he_.)


----------



## bennymix

The Thoene thesis (which gave rise to the book) may well have been written in English, since it deals with American literature.   And Germans have pretty high standards in this area, even if it's not Mr Thoene's first language.    See biblio data at  DNB, Katalog der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek


Just so Jung Kim and you don't think the construction is rare

*Trump's Venezuela crisis may mark start of 'Second Cold War' | TheHill*
https://thehill.com › opinion › international › 427845-trumps-venezuela-cr...

Jan 31, 2019 - ... militarized groups — and, even if they do, it is questionable whether their numbers and capabilities would be significant _enough so as to_ win.
===================

*Flying International in the British Airways Premium Economy Cabin*
https://landlopers.com › 2017/05/25 › british-airways-premium-economy

May 25, 2017 - I recently had that chance on a daytime flight from _London_ back ... sure that Premium Economy cabins are different _enough so as to_ provide real benefit, without encroaching on the benefits of Business or First Class.
==========================

London’s Tech Scene - Jumpstart Magazine

Jun 12, 2015 - _London_ is one of the most booming places to set-up a new venture, ... This indirectly means that London and UK in general have grown enough so as to be resourceful enough to entice imagination and open investor pockets deeper than before.


----------



## Loob

The bottom line, benny, is that you appear to find "enough ... so as to" acceptable, and I find it unacceptable.


----------



## Andygc

Loob said:


> I find the Valentine Hacquard sentence quoted in post 1 decidedly odd.


Me too, Loob. I can't think how the "... enough ... so as to ..." usage can ever make sense. I find all the examples in post 21 strange - strange enough to be considered 'wrong'.


----------



## Loob

Thanks, Andy!

That's three of us, then .. you, me, and JungKim.

(Four if we include E-J .)


----------



## bennymix

For native speakers, re present examples,  it's 2 against 2, currently.


----------



## Loob

3 against 2, on my count


----------



## Loob

@DonnyB, are you positive you want to be included in the pro "_enough ... so as to" _statistics?


----------



## DonnyB

Loob said:


> @DonnyB, are you positive you want to be included in the pro "_enough ... so as to" _statistics?


I have certainly seen that combination of _"[x is common] enough ... so as to [result in y]"_ used. I would probably class it as redundant more than actually wrong. Of the three examples Benny came up with in post #21, I'd accept #2 more readily than #1 or #3.


----------



## bennymix

DonnyB said:


> I have certainly seen that combination of _"[x is common] enough ... so as to [result in y]"_ used. I would probably class it as redundant more than actually wrong. Of the three examples Benny came up with in post #21, I'd accept #2 more readily than #1 or #3.



Yes, that's a good one #2 (British Airways).   What should be pointed out is that the exact wording and context are crucial.   I found that in trying to construct good examples.

There are cases where the wording '... [adjective][adverb]...so as to' is awkward, or even wrong, as in the ancient thread with E-J's   

Also I find Hacquard in the OP not objectionable though the style is dense, unfriendly and academic.


----------



## Loob

DonnyB said:


> I have certainly seen that combination of _"[x is common] enough ... so as to [result in y]"_ used. I would probably class it as redundant more than actually wrong. Of the three examples Benny came up with in post #21, I'd accept #2 more readily than #1 or #3.


Interesting, Donny.
For me, it's definitely wrong.


----------



## bennymix

Here are a couple related examples from Oxford [*so*]:

_O1 ‘I'm not so foolish as to say that’      

O2 ‘I am not so stupid as to consider myself original.’   



_


----------



## Loob

Both of those are fine, benny.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> 3 against 2, on my count


Good to know!
If the 'enough...so as to' construction is not illegal in the OP, the only reason I could think of is that the intervening phrase (_cross-linguistically, and in languages from different families,_) is a bit too long for the simpler 'to-infinitive' without 'so as' to be related to the 'enough'.
Might this be a justification for using 'so as to' after 'enough' for the 'against' camp?


----------



## Andygc

bennymix said:


> Here are a couple related examples from Oxford [*so*]:
> 
> _O1 ‘I'm not so foolish as to say that’
> 
> O2 ‘I am not so stupid as to consider myself original.’   _


Neither of those contains "enough", so how are they relevant to the question that JK asked? That "not so {adjective} as to" construction *requires* "as".


DonnyB said:


> I have certainly seen that combination


But seeing erroneous usage doesn't make it right. I see errors most days when reading articles on the BBC News website, and "I could of" is so common that the verb "of" has a lengthy entry in the OED. It's still considered wrong.

Like Loob, I see no merit in the British Airways sentence.


----------



## bennymix

Andygc said:


> Neither of those contains "enough", so how are they relevant to the question that JK asked? That "not so {adjective} as to" construction *requires* "as".
> 
> //But seeing erroneous usage doesn't make it right.// I see errors most days when reading articles on the BBC News website, and "I could of" is so common that the verb "of" has a lengthy entry in the OED. It's still considered wrong.
> 
> Like Loob, I see no merit in the British Airways sentence.



There some flaws in your argument:   Of course 'seeing an erroneous usage doesn't make it right'.   IF we knew that ahead of time.   But we don't.   The question is, "Is it erroneous?"   Now I can't speak for Donny, but I myself never said  "I saw it here and here, so it's right (e.g. British Airways example)."

It's rather the opposite.   I had decided it was passable grammar and usage, if uncommon, and went looking.  I found some examples by literate writers.
These raise the possibility that it's acceptable.    Now Jung Kim and you both want to be very prescriptive about the whole thing.  He's asking if the OP usage was 'legal' and you're saying it's 'erroneous'.   I'm not so prescriptive.  I think we can describe for learners what's out there and give them some basic guidelines.   If something turns up in literate productions, especially published material, and they (instances) are not clearly slips of tongue or typos, we have bits of evidence that the construction is passable.    It's not exactly the issue of 'merit' (as in "I see no merit"), simply acceptability.   Some of these 'so as to" constructions are wordy or even pompous, lacking in the merit of conciseness and clarity, but they may be passable.

I might add that the original formulation is not quite right.   "enough, so as to"  is not a good way of stating the issue.   The key phrase is "common enough cross-linguistically... so as to."    A better description is "[adjective ]{adverb1}{adverb2} so as to."   Adverb1 can be "enough" and we can look at that.    It's hardly the key, however.  The British Airways example is /Premium Economy cabins are different _enough so as to_ provide real benefit, /

Taking the example I gave:  O1  _ ‘I'm not so foolish as to say that’      _ Let's put 'enough' in:   O1#  "I'm not foolish enough [as] to say that."

Now consider, O1##  "I'm not foolish enough so as to say that."     I do not like this, particularly...   because unlike the OP example, there is an agent for the second verb (the same as for the first verb), and the issue of intention is brought in.    And as pointed out by E-J, anciently,   'so as to' can misfire for intention cases.

So to get a passable sentence, we need an impersonal situation where consequences (unrelated to intention) are mentioned.

Here is one rendering O1$:     "The thought was plausible enough, in context, so as to make it worth putting into words."   In my opinion, it's passable.

Notice I'm preserving the structure of the OP example of Mr Hacquard, whom I am simply not ready, as is Jung Kim, to label a user of an 'illegal' construction.  Nor am I interested in doing so.


----------



## JungKim

bennymix said:


> Notice I'm preserving the structure of the OP example of Mr Hacquard, whom I am simply not ready, as is Jung Kim, to label a user of an 'illegal' construction.  Nor am I interested in doing so.


Please don't put words into my mouth. I've never said anything to label Hacquard "a user of an 'illegal' construction".
The only time I used the word 'illegal', I said: "*If* the 'enough...so as to' construction is not illegal in the OP..." And even the word 'illegal' I have used to sound less dull.   Sorry it didn't work.

In fact, if she (Hacquard is not Mr.) weren't a linguistics professor, I wouldn't have even considered posting this question. In case it's been somehow misrepresented and/or misunderstood, I'd like to make it clear that I've all along intended this thread to be about the reason for a linguistics professor to use this uncommon construction.


----------



## Andygc

bennymix said:


> There some flaws in your argument: Of course 'seeing an erroneous usage doesn't make it right'. IF we knew that ahead of time. But we don't.


There are no "flaws" in my argument. I'm expressing an opinion. DonnyB observed that he had seen this construction. So have I. I consider it wrong and observed that seeing a particular usage does not make it right. It also doesn't make it acceptable to me. When I first saw somebody write the verb "of" I knew it was wrong. I didn't know that "ahead of time"; I knew the correct verb was "have".


bennymix said:


> The thought was plausible enough, in context, so as to make it worth putting into words." In my opinion, it's passable.


You find this "{adjective} enough so as to {verb}" acceptable. I don't. I don't think I have anything more to add.


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> I've all along intended this thread to be about the reason for a linguistics professor to use this uncommon construction.


I can't offer a reason, I'm afraid, JungKim.
If I'd spotted the sentence myself, I'd just have assumed that the author had inadvertently combined "common enough to" and "so common as to", and that the proofreader - If there was one - had missed it.


----------



## JungKim

Loob said:


> I can't offer a reason, I'm afraid, JungKim.
> If I'd spotted the sentence myself, I'd just have assumed that the author had inadvertently combined "common enough to" and "so common as to", and that the proofreader - If there was one - had missed it.


So you wouldn't have found the long intervening phrase between 'enough' and 'to' (if used without 'so as') awkward?


----------



## Loob

No. I'd say that
_this multiplicity of modal meanings is common *enough *cross-linguistically, and in languages from different families, *to* make a lexical ambiguity account unlikely_​would be much better than the original.


----------



## JungKim

Thanks, Loob. Then, I think the "reason" in post #38 is the answer I've been looking for.


----------



## PaulQ

_



			However, this multiplicity of modal meanings is common *enough *cross-linguistically, and in languages from different families, *so as to* make a lexical ambiguity account unlikely: it is highly improbable that the same lexical accident should be found in language after language.
		
Click to expand...

_


JungKim said:


> Then, I think _either _you should be able to distinguish the OP's sentence and your examples that allow 'enough...so as to...' on the one hand and the sentence that I quoted from the earlier thread on the other hand, _or _you don't agree with the BE speaker in that thread.
> Which is it?


I find that rather harsh...


Loob said:


> I'm not sure I'm answering the question - I just wanted to say that I find "enough ... so as to" decidedly odd


I see it as "common enough" as per the OED. *enough *is an adverb:
OED *B.* adv. (In modern English _enough_ normally follows an adj. or adv. which it qualifies;
*1.a.  Sufficiently; in a quantity or degree that satisfies a desire, meets a want, or fulfils a purpose. *_[Edit PQ =note the "or"]_
1809    J. Roland _Amateur of Fencing_ 61 You are not always quick enough to parry as has been recommended.


JungKim said:


> Then, the question remains how you're going to distinguish the X'd sentence from the OP and your examples.
> If you don't know how to articulate the difference, you could just say so.
> If you do know how, I don't know why you're not doing it.


I find that rather harsh...


JungKim said:


> I'd like to make it clear that I've all along intended this thread to be about the reason for a linguistics professor to use this uncommon construction.


I see nothing wrong with it.



> However, this multiplicity of modal meanings is *sufficiently* common





> _cross-linguistically, and in languages from different families, *so as to* make a lexical ambiguity account unlikely: _



*so as* -> in such a manner as - i.e. the sheer numbers make it highly unlikely.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> I see nothing wrong with it.


You and benny are a twosome, then.


----------



## PaulQ

A: "I hear this is a good place for watching eagles..."
B: "Yes, there are hundreds around here; they're common enough so as to make not seeing one unlikely."

You are at liberty to form a threesome...


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> Please don't put words into my mouth. I've never said anything to label Hacquard "a user of an 'illegal' construction".
> The only time I used the word 'illegal', I said: "*If* the 'enough...so as to' construction is not illegal in the OP..." And even the word 'illegal' I have used to sound less dull.   Sorry it didn't work.
> 
> In fact, if she (Hacquard is not Mr.) weren't a linguistics professor, I wouldn't have even considered posting this question. In case it's been somehow misrepresented and/or misunderstood, I'd like to make it clear that I've all along intended this thread to be about the reason for a linguistics professor to use this uncommon construction.



Thanks for clarifying the sex.    Yes, she's an internationally famous linguistics prof with a PhD from MIT, widely published.   She also writes rather well, if densely and specialized.    Most of her papers, in addition are edited and proofread.   Hence an 'illegal' bit of usage would be unlikely to pass through.     This is why I have said, the simple question of 'acceptable' is to be answered 'yes' whatever the academic 'stiffness', or awkwardness-- to which she is NOT prone.


----------



## Loob

PaulQ said:


> You are at liberty to form a threesome...


Already done!


----------



## JungKim

PaulQ said:


> I see it as "common enough" as per the OED.
> ...
> *1.a.  Sufficiently; in a quantity or degree that satisfies a desire, meets a want, or fulfils a purpose. *_[Edit PQ =note the "or"]_
> 1809    J. Roland _Amateur of Fencing_ 61 You are not always quick enough to parry as has been recommended.
> ...
> *so as* -> in such a manner as - i.e. the sheer numbers make it highly unlikely.


Thanks for citing OED, but from your quotes it seems to me that OED doesn't explicitly say 'so as to' can follow 'enough', does it? And OED doesn't seem to have a single example sentence where 'enough + so as to' is used. 

Moreover, you seem to be saying that the 'so as to' part in the 'enough + so as to' construction in the OP "fulfils a purpose". If that's what you're saying, your interpretation of the 'so as to' part is different from that of benny and DonnyB, who think that 'so as to' means 'with the result' in the OP.

Speaking of which, since you have access to OED, could you be kind enough (??so as) to cite the definition of 'so as (to)' in OED? I'd like to know whether OED defines 'so as (to)' as 'with the result' as well as 'with the purpose' (just as the RH dictionary does).


----------



## bennymix

I'm posting some published British examples to give readers a description of how literate writers use the phrases under discussion. The first, third and fourth involve consequences; the second, purpose.

Risk, networks and privateering in Liverpool during the Seven Years’ War, 1756–1763

We do not know the profitability of these voyages, and in any case, attempts to calculate
an average mean would be pointless as a voyage might return with no prize, or one
worth thousands of pounds. One has to assume, however, that repeat voyages meant that
the first was profitable, or at least enough so as to encourage a second or further voyage.

IJMHhttps://doi.org/10.1177/0843871417745742The International Journal of Maritime History2018, Vol. 30(1) 30 –51© The Author(s) 2018Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0843871417745742journals.sagepub.com/home/ijhArticle Risk, networks and privateering in Liverpool during the Seven Years’ War, 1756–1763Sheryllynne Haggerty University of Nottingham, UK  
*Risk, networks and privateering in Liverpool during the seven years war... - SAGE Journals*
https://journals.sagepub.com › doi › pdf

by S Haggerty - ‎2018 - ‎Related articles
====
*How Much Does Traffic Cost? - MAT Foundry Group*
https://www.matfoundrygroup.com › How_Much_Does_Traffic_Cost
Remarkably, 23% of _London's_ traffic moves at less than 5mph during peak times. ...If getting behind the wheel is your only option taking greater consideration over braking can make a world of difference. Slowing down when queues emerge is common sense but hitting the brakes too frequently creates an unhelpful accordion of irritable road ragers. Consequently everyone grinds to a halt – exasperating the problem. If possible, it is best to slow enough so as to avoid braking every few seconds.
===============

*Fake news: are current UK laws sufficient? - Lexology*
https://www.lexology.com › library › detail


_United Kingdom_ August 14 2017.

The CA 2003 goes too far in terms of criminalising what could be classed an innocent but silly behaviour, such as belligerent posts on ‘Finstagram’ (aka fake Instagram, or ‘Finsta’). But equally it does not go far enough so as to offer any protection against the publication of false stories.
====
2017: A Year of Uncertainty and Record-Breaking Real Estate Deals

"By September of 2017, it started to feel as if buyers had come to understand that uncertainty is simply the new way of life in our new world order," Mr. Stein* said. "As such they started to grow more comfortable with being uncomfortable, enough so as to actually move on with their lives and start buying property despite not feeling certain of what the future holds."

*Jeremy Stein of Sotheby’s International Realty


----------



## JungKim

CGEL by Pullum (Page 969) says:


> In AmE these degree modifiers license a complement with the form of a content clause or _so_ + content clause:
> [51] i %_The orchestra is far enough away from you that you miss the bow scrapes, valve clicks, and other noises incidental to playing. _
> ii [_sufficient_ example]
> iii %_The party is usually in a room small enough so that all guests are within sight and hearing of one another._
> (BrE would have to have an infinitival complement here: _far enough away from you for you to _(_be able to_) _miss the bow scrapes..._)


Note: In CGEL, symbol % means "grammatical in some dialect(s) only".

But CGEL doesn't mention anything about the construction 'enough...so as to'.

Now, in Present-day English (since WWII), 'enough to' has been used 2800 times as much as 'enough so as to'; 'enough that' 120 times; and 'enough so that' 50 times, according to Ngram.


----------



## velisarius

I haven't read the whole of the thread, but like Andy and Loob I find it "odd" and I wouldn't have used _ is common *enough [...]*, *so as to* make _ myself. I would judge it bad style, for BE at least, but perhaps it's generally accepted nowadays.


----------



## bennymix

velisarius said:


> I haven't read the whole of the thread, but like Andy and Loob I find it "odd" and I wouldn't have used _ is common *enough [...]*, *so as to* make _ myself. I would judge it bad style, for BE at least, but perhaps it's generally accepted nowadays.



I'm glad you focussed on a proper unit;  this thread, from the start had an approach like this:  Consider the sentence,  "The lower court case was decided correctly, the judges ruled."  Now let's ask the question:    Is THIS a proper phrase,  "correctly the judges"?    It's not in the dictionary!

What's also worth mentioning is that even simpler, similar sentences, such as "I'm going outside so as to exercize my legs" are quite stiffly formal, even awkward.


----------



## PaulQ

JungKim said:


> Thanks for citing OED, but from your quotes it seems to me that OED doesn't explicitly say 'so as to' can follow 'enough', does it? And OED doesn't seem to have a single example sentence where 'enough + so as to' is used.


There is a an English dictum "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Rather than using an absence of something to confirm one's own prejudices, it is worthwhile considering this...


----------



## Loob

JungKim said:


> could you be kind enough (??so as) to cite the definition of 'so as (to)' in OED? I'd like to know whether OED defines 'so as (to)' as 'with the result' as well as 'with the purpose' (just as the RH dictionary does).


To answer the question you posed to Paul, this is what the OED entry for *so *says about "so as" + _infinitive_:
*28.*​*a. so.., or so..as, so as, followed by an infinitive denoting result or consequence.The omission of as is now regarded as irregular.*​*[...]*​_c_1680   W. Beveridge _Serm._ (1729) II. 283   They all run, but not so as to obtain.​1736   _Gentleman's Mag._ Dec. 716/1   I think it impossible to amend it..so as to make it a Bill fit for being passed.​1853   _Zoologist_ *11* 3724   Dismounting and hobbling the horse so as to allow him to feed.​1896   _Law Times_ *100* 488/1   To repair the drain so as to abate the nuisance complained of.​​*b. With infinitive preceded by a noun. rare.*​​JungKim, I suggest you take from this thread whatever makes most sense to you.


----------



## Andygc

I wasn't going to post again, but then I saw this outrageous statement.


bennymix said:


> I'm glad you focussed on a proper unit; this thread, from the start had an approach like this: Consider the sentence, "The lower court case was decided correctly, the judges ruled." Now let's ask the question:  Is THIS a proper phrase, "correctly the judges"? It's not in the dictionary!


The "proper unit", which some of us have been concentrating on, is "_ is common *enough [...]*, *so as to* make_" It is others, including bennymix, who have introduced the irrelevance of quoting sentences that do not contain the word "enough".


----------



## velisarius

bennymix said:


> I find Hacquard in the OP not objectionable though the style is dense, unfriendly and academic.



Well, I'm never averse to picking holes in someone else's style, so I admit that this "too big *of* a" (from the preceding sentence) gave me quite a shock: 

_Such an ambiguity is tacitly assumed in semantic analyses that focus on particular subtypes of modality (Groenendijk & Stokhof 10 1975 for epistemic may, Kamp 1975 for deontic may), and, perhaps, postulating ambiguity 220 for certain modal words *may not be too big of an issue*, given that there are modal words which are never ambiguous (e.g., might). _

Too _colloquial _for me, I'm afraid.


----------



## bennymix

JungKim said:


> CGEL by Pullum (Page 969) says:
> 
> Note: In CGEL, symbol % means "grammatical in some dialect(s) only".
> 
> But CGEL doesn't mention anything about the construction 'enough...so as to'.
> 
> Now, in Present-day English (since WWII), 'enough to' has been used 2800 times as much as 'enough so as to'; 'enough that' 120 times; and 'enough so that' 50 times, according to Ngram.



Regarding Pullam and your first sentence about 'some dialects'.   What you might have noted is the Mr. Pullum is a descriptive linguist.   He is not saying "Do this, it's legal" or "Don't do this [unless you speak a dialect]."

Pullum published this article, in August 26, 2018, in the_ Chronicle of Higher Education,_ 

_*The Perennial Difficulty of Defining What ‘Descriptive’ Means in Grammar.*
There, he characterizes himself as a descriptive linguist and explains himself thus, against the suggestion he’s covertly prescriptive:

In describing a structural regularity I am not recommending that it be respected. If I show you the design plan for my summerhouse, and you imagine that I’m saying yours ought to have a tilted flat roof like mine, that would be an insane misinterpretation. There is no covert recommendation that you should build yours just the same…Dialect A may have a restriction which is completely absent in dialect B; […]Describing any one of them is not tantamount to recommending in its favor or deprecating the others.

==_
I recommend the article to readers who have any perplexity about the nature of 'rules' in books--at least Pullum's--on grammar.


----------



## velisarius

People learning a language need to know what is considered "good English" (while allowing for different registers in different contexts). Teachers have to be prescriptive to some extent.

To borrow an example from Andygc, it isn't much point telling a learner (even an advanced learner) that "I would *of* done it if I could" is so commonly used that nobody turns a hair when you say it. People will judge you on your language use, just as they will judge you on the way you dress and on your body language.


----------



## DonnyB

It's become increasingly apparent that this is a topic on which people are not going to reach agreement and that further discussion is unlikely to prove fruitful.  This thread had also wandered considerably from its original focus on the topic sentence.  I'm therefore now closing it: thanks to everyone for their contributions, which I hope JungKim has found useful.
DonnyB - moderator.


----------

