Teacher Discussion Forums

Quirk et al. say that we can rewirte (1) as (3), implying that both Rachel and Saul are not couragous.

However, native speakers seem to take (1) as meaning either (2a) or (2b).

(1) Rachel is no more courageous than Saul (is). (Quirk et al. 1985:1136)
(2) a. Rachel and Saul are equally couragous, irrespective of how courageous they really are.
b. At least, Rachel doesn't outbrave Saul.
(3) Rachel is not courageous, any more than Saul is.

Someone says that no native speakers other than teachers of English any longer distinguish (1) and (4).

(4) Rachel is not more courageous than Saul (is).

If we assume there may be no virtual distinction between (1) and (4) on an everyday basis, then it follows that (1) may mean (2b).

What annoys me most is the relationship between (2a) and (2b): I wonder if (2a) and (2b) are two different things to mean or (2b) may imply (2a).

If you allow me to rephrase it, my quesiton is if native speakers who interpret (1) as meaning (2a) are the same or different than those who take (1) as meaing (2b)?

Thank you in advance
Seiichi MYOGA

Firstly, I take sentence 1 to mean 2a, and not 2b. And the normal connotation is one of a deficiency of courage in both of them.

Secondly, I don't accept "outbrave" as a word in contemporary English, and would never use it. However, if I did, I would say that (2b) implies (1).

Thirdly, (3) is not saying the same as (1), since (1) allows a degree of courage to exist, albeit not much, while (3) forbids it.

Fourthly, I don't discern any differentiation of meaning between 1 and 4.

Fifthly, I don't quite understand you last question as to whether native speakers are the same or different.

Harzer