Some years ago a friend sent me a copy of a book that he had had a hand in writing. It was about a subject (not the English language) in which I had some good knowledge and I made a few suggestions for the next edition. As one might expect, the reactions to my various points varied from sincere thanks to polite disagreement. But there was one exception; I suggested that the use of ‘if not’ might be ambiguous and should be changed. Good heavens! I might as well have suggested that the author use ‘gonna’ and ‘wanna’ for ‘going to’ and ‘want to’. And that despite the fact that in other circumstance people recognise my professionalism and actually pay me good money to correct their use of English.
That event stuck in my mind so it was with great relief that I read this article in the Economist. Johnson offers the sentence:
I'm a good tennis player, if not a great one.
and reports that in an admittedly small sample 44 people thought that the default interpretation was
(a) I'm a good tennis player, and may even be a great one.
while 17 thought it meant
(b) I'm a good tennis player, though not a great one.
Vindication! That’s good enough for me. Myself, I never use the phrase and see no reason why I (or anyone else) should want to do so when perfectly good non-ambiguous paraphrases are available.
Recent Comments