Need some help to understand the meaning of this sentence

.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

I am reading an article and it has this sentence:

However, given the nature of laws protecting victims of rape, it will
be a very difficult and highly technical legal battle to show that the
accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct designed to harm
the reputation of the accused and subject him to possible criminal
sanctions.

What is the meaning of the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction here?

It does not really fit what this paragraph is trying to say. I think it makes more sense to say

the accuser not only lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct designed to harm
the reputation of the accused.

edited 10 mins ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

asked 3 hours ago

bluecheesecake

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

I am reading an article and it has this sentence:

However, given the nature of laws protecting victims of rape, it will
be a very difficult and highly technical legal battle to show that the
accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct designed to harm
the reputation of the accused and subject him to possible criminal
sanctions.

What is the meaning of the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction here?

It does not really fit what this paragraph is trying to say. I think it makes more sense to say

the accuser not only lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct designed to harm
the reputation of the accused.

edited 10 mins ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

asked 3 hours ago

bluecheesecake

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

favorite

I am reading an article and it has this sentence:

However, given the nature of laws protecting victims of rape, it will
be a very difficult and highly technical legal battle to show that the
accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct designed to harm
the reputation of the accused and subject him to possible criminal
sanctions.

What is the meaning of the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction here?

It does not really fit what this paragraph is trying to say. I think it makes more sense to say

the accuser not only lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct designed to harm
the reputation of the accused.

edited 10 mins ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

asked 3 hours ago

bluecheesecake

I am reading an article and it has this sentence:

However, given the nature of laws protecting victims of rape, it will
be a very difficult and highly technical legal battle to show that the
accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct designed to harm
the reputation of the accused and subject him to possible criminal
sanctions.

What is the meaning of the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction here?

It does not really fit what this paragraph is trying to say. I think it makes more sense to say

the accuser not only lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct designed to harm
the reputation of the accused.

meaning grammar

edited 10 mins ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

asked 3 hours ago

bluecheesecake

edited 10 mins ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

asked 3 hours ago

bluecheesecake

edited 10 mins ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

edited 10 mins ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

edited 10 mins ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

asked 3 hours ago

bluecheesecake

asked 3 hours ago

bluecheesecake

asked 3 hours ago

bluecheesecake

add a commentÂ |Â

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

up vote
2
down vote

It means pretty well the same as your paraphrase with not only.

But there is a difference in the discourse pragmatics. The use of "did not simply" rather than "not only did" is explicitly refuting a claim that he "simply did" whatever. This claim might have been stated somewhere, or it might just be floating around in the air, and the writer thinks that people believe it. Either way, the writer is wanting to say "contrary to that suggestion which has been made/people are claiming/you might be thinking, he not only did this but also that".

answered 2 hours ago

Colin Fine

61.4k167154

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

"Did not simply lack" but [verb]

is semantically the same as:

"Not only lacked" but [verb]

simply is used in the same way as only to create a complex sentence and to have the two clauses act in contrast to each other.

Here is a much simpler example to show structure:

He did not simply steal my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

He not only stole my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

"did not simply" for me here is stylistic and means the same thing as "not only". I can see no semantic difference in meaning.

Both "not simply" and "not only" signal a second clause that will be in contrast to the first one through use of "but" conjunction. In the OP's sentence actually is used instead of also.

answered 2 hours ago

Lambie

7,0211831

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
0
down vote

You're absolutely right in pointing out that the original construction is way too bulky, too verbose, and lacks verve:

to show that the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to
obtain a conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct
designed to ...

Your version is somewhat more elegant:

the accuser not only lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged ...

Both mean roughly the same thing.

I would, perhaps, substitute "just" or "merely" for "simply," but that would be nitpicking.

answered 1 min ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

add a commentÂ |Â

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);

);

draft saved

draft discarded

StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f467246%2fneed-some-help-to-understand-the-meaning-of-this-sentence%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

Name

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

up vote
2
down vote

It means pretty well the same as your paraphrase with not only.

answered 2 hours ago

Colin Fine

61.4k167154

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
2
down vote

It means pretty well the same as your paraphrase with not only.

answered 2 hours ago

Colin Fine

61.4k167154

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
2
down vote

It means pretty well the same as your paraphrase with not only.

answered 2 hours ago

Colin Fine

61.4k167154

It means pretty well the same as your paraphrase with not only.

answered 2 hours ago

Colin Fine

61.4k167154

answered 2 hours ago

Colin Fine

61.4k167154

answered 2 hours ago

Colin Fine

61.4k167154

answered 2 hours ago

Colin Fine

61.4k167154

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

"Did not simply lack" but [verb]

is semantically the same as:

"Not only lacked" but [verb]

simply is used in the same way as only to create a complex sentence and to have the two clauses act in contrast to each other.

Here is a much simpler example to show structure:

He did not simply steal my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

He not only stole my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

"did not simply" for me here is stylistic and means the same thing as "not only". I can see no semantic difference in meaning.

Both "not simply" and "not only" signal a second clause that will be in contrast to the first one through use of "but" conjunction. In the OP's sentence actually is used instead of also.

answered 2 hours ago

Lambie

7,0211831

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

"Did not simply lack" but [verb]

is semantically the same as:

"Not only lacked" but [verb]

simply is used in the same way as only to create a complex sentence and to have the two clauses act in contrast to each other.

Here is a much simpler example to show structure:

He did not simply steal my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

He not only stole my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

"did not simply" for me here is stylistic and means the same thing as "not only". I can see no semantic difference in meaning.

Both "not simply" and "not only" signal a second clause that will be in contrast to the first one through use of "but" conjunction. In the OP's sentence actually is used instead of also.

answered 2 hours ago

Lambie

7,0211831

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
1
down vote

"Did not simply lack" but [verb]

is semantically the same as:

"Not only lacked" but [verb]

simply is used in the same way as only to create a complex sentence and to have the two clauses act in contrast to each other.

Here is a much simpler example to show structure:

He did not simply steal my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

He not only stole my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

"did not simply" for me here is stylistic and means the same thing as "not only". I can see no semantic difference in meaning.

Both "not simply" and "not only" signal a second clause that will be in contrast to the first one through use of "but" conjunction. In the OP's sentence actually is used instead of also.

answered 2 hours ago

Lambie

7,0211831

"Did not simply lack" but [verb]

is semantically the same as:

"Not only lacked" but [verb]

simply is used in the same way as only to create a complex sentence and to have the two clauses act in contrast to each other.

Here is a much simpler example to show structure:

He did not simply steal my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

He not only stole my car; he also stole my motorcycle.

"did not simply" for me here is stylistic and means the same thing as "not only". I can see no semantic difference in meaning.

Both "not simply" and "not only" signal a second clause that will be in contrast to the first one through use of "but" conjunction. In the OP's sentence actually is used instead of also.

answered 2 hours ago

Lambie

7,0211831

answered 2 hours ago

Lambie

7,0211831

answered 2 hours ago

Lambie

7,0211831

answered 2 hours ago

Lambie

7,0211831

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
0
down vote

You're absolutely right in pointing out that the original construction is way too bulky, too verbose, and lacks verve:

to show that the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to
obtain a conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct
designed to ...

Your version is somewhat more elegant:

the accuser not only lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged ...

Both mean roughly the same thing.

I would, perhaps, substitute "just" or "merely" for "simply," but that would be nitpicking.

answered 1 min ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
0
down vote

You're absolutely right in pointing out that the original construction is way too bulky, too verbose, and lacks verve:

to show that the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to
obtain a conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct
designed to ...

Your version is somewhat more elegant:

the accuser not only lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged ...

Both mean roughly the same thing.

I would, perhaps, substitute "just" or "merely" for "simply," but that would be nitpicking.

answered 1 min ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

add a commentÂ |Â

up vote
0
down vote

You're absolutely right in pointing out that the original construction is way too bulky, too verbose, and lacks verve:

to show that the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to
obtain a conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct
designed to ...

Your version is somewhat more elegant:

the accuser not only lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged ...

Both mean roughly the same thing.

I would, perhaps, substitute "just" or "merely" for "simply," but that would be nitpicking.

answered 1 min ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

You're absolutely right in pointing out that the original construction is way too bulky, too verbose, and lacks verve:

to show that the accuser did not simply lack sufficient evidence to
obtain a conviction, but actually engaged in malicious conduct
designed to ...

Your version is somewhat more elegant:

the accuser not only lacked sufficient evidence to obtain a
conviction, but actually engaged ...

Both mean roughly the same thing.

I would, perhaps, substitute "just" or "merely" for "simply," but that would be nitpicking.

answered 1 min ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

answered 1 min ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

answered 1 min ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

answered 1 min ago

Ricky

13.5k43074

add a commentÂ |Â

draft saved

draft discarded

draft saved

draft discarded

Post as a guest

Name

Search This Blog

Iyfjky