![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was just asked the following question about English grammar. I'm changing the details of the example passage, because it's from an unpublished document, but the basic question remains the same.
In this case, "not only... but also" form a correlative conjunction, and in formal/proper English both halves should always be used together. "That", in "not only that", is a relative pronoun referring to the entire previous sentence; it has no effect upon the basic construction of the correlative conjunction "not only... but also". Compare how the sentences sound if you rephrase them as a single one (I'm dropping a clause for brevity):
With the new robot solution, not only can the rangers now tranquilize rampaging beasts safely from a distance, but once a ranger is trained, the robot will automatically retrieve the beast for safe transport back to the wilderness.
versus
With the new robot solution, not only can the rangers can now tranquilize rampaging beasts safely from a distance, once a ranger is trained, the robot will automatically retrieve the beast for safe transport back to the wilderness.
In the second version, without the second half "but also" of the conjunction, it's not immediately clear where the second concept—the automatic retrieval—begins. Is the clause "once a ranger is trained" adding detail to the first part—safely tranquilizing beasts from a distance—or is it introducing the second part—automatically retrieving them?
Now having said all that, in informal English, because everyone is familiar with the conjunction "not only... but also", it's sometimes okay to leave out the second half. Because the original passage starts a new sentence to express the second concept (the advantage of automatic retrieval), it's understood that this is following on from the first part as an addition and the "but also" would be assumed by anyone familiar with English.
So if the style guidelines that apply to this document allow for informal English usage, then the second version of the passage omitting the "but also" would be okay, possibly even preferred. However, in the work I usually do, the preferred style tends toward formal usage, in part for globalization reasons: it's much easier to translate the passage when the formal rules of English grammar are followed.
Answering this question reminded me that I want to get a good reference or textbook for English grammar, because it's not the sort of thing covered by typical style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style. Even I sometimes need to look up a rule, or at least remind myself of the technical terms. I remember complaining a lot about Warriner's English Grammar and Composition, which we used every year in secondary school, but now I wonder if there's a general-reference version rather than the multiple-book series for high schools. It also made me think that I should probably be teaching English, but I've never been particularly interested in doing so; I much prefer being an English consultant to the idea of having to manage a class.
What do you know about the usage of “not only that…”? The most typical usage is of course “not only…, but also…”, but that’s not what we’re talking about here. To my ear, there should be a “but” following “not only that”, but I can’t find any guidance on this anywhere (though when I search the Web for “not only that” the majority of instances use the “but”). Here’s the passage in question – which version is right?
With the new robot solution, the rangers can now tranquilize rampaging beasts safely from a distance, whether they’re in a state park or on a city street. Not only that, but once a ranger is trained, the robot will automatically retrieve the beast for safe transport back to the wilderness.
OR
With the new robot solution, the rangers can now tranquilize rampaging beasts safely from a distance, whether they’re in a state park or on a city street. Not only that, once a ranger is trained, the robot will automatically retrieve the beast for safe transport back to the wilderness.
In this case, "not only... but also" form a correlative conjunction, and in formal/proper English both halves should always be used together. "That", in "not only that", is a relative pronoun referring to the entire previous sentence; it has no effect upon the basic construction of the correlative conjunction "not only... but also". Compare how the sentences sound if you rephrase them as a single one (I'm dropping a clause for brevity):
With the new robot solution, not only can the rangers now tranquilize rampaging beasts safely from a distance, but once a ranger is trained, the robot will automatically retrieve the beast for safe transport back to the wilderness.
versus
With the new robot solution, not only can the rangers can now tranquilize rampaging beasts safely from a distance, once a ranger is trained, the robot will automatically retrieve the beast for safe transport back to the wilderness.
In the second version, without the second half "but also" of the conjunction, it's not immediately clear where the second concept—the automatic retrieval—begins. Is the clause "once a ranger is trained" adding detail to the first part—safely tranquilizing beasts from a distance—or is it introducing the second part—automatically retrieving them?
Now having said all that, in informal English, because everyone is familiar with the conjunction "not only... but also", it's sometimes okay to leave out the second half. Because the original passage starts a new sentence to express the second concept (the advantage of automatic retrieval), it's understood that this is following on from the first part as an addition and the "but also" would be assumed by anyone familiar with English.
So if the style guidelines that apply to this document allow for informal English usage, then the second version of the passage omitting the "but also" would be okay, possibly even preferred. However, in the work I usually do, the preferred style tends toward formal usage, in part for globalization reasons: it's much easier to translate the passage when the formal rules of English grammar are followed.
Answering this question reminded me that I want to get a good reference or textbook for English grammar, because it's not the sort of thing covered by typical style guides such as the Chicago Manual of Style. Even I sometimes need to look up a rule, or at least remind myself of the technical terms. I remember complaining a lot about Warriner's English Grammar and Composition, which we used every year in secondary school, but now I wonder if there's a general-reference version rather than the multiple-book series for high schools. It also made me think that I should probably be teaching English, but I've never been particularly interested in doing so; I much prefer being an English consultant to the idea of having to manage a class.
