‘Not until’ VS ‘until’
It was not until his third match that Mendoza won.
It was until his third match that Mendoza won.
What is the difference between two sentence？
grammar
asked yesterday
Y. zengY. zeng
62
New contributor
Y. zeng is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
It was not until his third match that Mendoza won.
It was until his third match that Mendoza won.
What is the difference between two sentence？
grammar
asked yesterday
Y. zengY. zeng
62
New contributor
Y. zeng is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
As you can see from the answers, the second sentence is very strange. Although technically grammatical, it would normally not be phrased that way. Better phrasing would be Mendoza was winning until his third match.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
add a comment |
It was not until his third match that Mendoza won.
It was until his third match that Mendoza won.
What is the difference between two sentence？
grammar
asked yesterday
Y. zengY. zeng
62
New contributor
Y. zeng is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
It was not until his third match that Mendoza won.
It was until his third match that Mendoza won.
What is the difference between two sentence？
grammar
grammar
asked yesterday
Y. zengY. zeng
62
New contributor
Y. zeng is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Y. zengY. zeng
62
New contributor
Y. zeng is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Y. zengY. zeng
62
New contributor
Y. zeng is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Y. zengY. zeng
62
asked yesterday
Y. zengY. zeng
62
62
New contributor
Y. zeng is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Y. zeng is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Y. zeng is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
As you can see from the answers, the second sentence is very strange. Although technically grammatical, it would normally not be phrased that way. Better phrasing would be Mendoza was winning until his third match.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
add a comment |
As you can see from the answers, the second sentence is very strange. Although technically grammatical, it would normally not be phrased that way. Better phrasing would be Mendoza was winning until his third match.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
As you can see from the answers, the second sentence is very strange. Although technically grammatical, it would normally not be phrased that way. Better phrasing would be Mendoza was winning until his third match.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
As you can see from the answers, the second sentence is very strange. Although technically grammatical, it would normally not be phrased that way. Better phrasing would be Mendoza was winning until his third match.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
The first sentence means that Mendoza lost his first two matches and then won his third match. The second sentence means that Mendoza won his first two matches, but lost the third. However, the second sentence would not be used by a native speaker.
It was not until X(time) that Y(event).
is a commonly used construction in English, and could be rephrased as
Z(subject) did not Y(verb phrase) until X(time). (e.g. - Mendoza did not win until his third match.)
However, your second sentence is a form that I have never seen used. I cannot quite get to the bottom of why this is, but one obvious point is that it can be easily rephrased to a more concise form:
Until his third match, Mendoza won.
Furthermore, to me, there should be a certain continuity to Y in
It was until X(time) that Y(state).
For example,
It was until his third match that Mendoza was unhappy.
This makes perfect sense and would be used by native speakers. But winning a match is an event, rather than a continuous state, so I don't think "won" fits in this construction. However, I'm not sure why this is. Hopefully a linguist can enlighten us.
answered yesterday
Tim FosterTim Foster
616113
2
The "it was" structure is positive and therefore redundant for a positive statement, which is why it feels so awkward there. Also, putting the subject at the end is awkward as well (outside of poetry or highly narrative styles). In contrast, "it was not" is perfectly fine to use. You can see why if you examine your own early sections - "It was not" is simpler than the structure required to replace it. For your final example, I would still prefer "Mendoza was unhappy until his third match."
– Jeutnarg
yesterday
add a comment |
Sentence 1 means Mendoza wins starting with his third match.
Sentence 2 does not make sense; it sounds very awkward.
Another way to rephrase #1 is "Mendoza did not win until his third match."
answered yesterday
Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee
1264
New contributor
Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Can you help me delete 'not until' and 'that'? I want to see the ordinary sentence.
– Y. zeng
yesterday
1
Sentence 2 is certainly "awkward", but I'd say it's syntactically valid, and would mean Mendoza (consistently) won until his third match (with the implication that he lost the third match, his "winning streak" having ended).
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
add a comment |
- Mendoza did not won until his third match
- Mendoza won until his third match
answered yesterday
PremlathaPremlatha
92
New contributor
Premlatha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Given the question is obviously from a non-native speaker, I think you should explicitly point out that no native speaker would actually use his version 2, even though strictly speaking it's syntactically valid, and has the same meaning as your perfectly natural rephrasing.
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
2
The first is ungrammatical
– Laurel
yesterday
add a comment |
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Y. zeng is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490565%2fnot-until-vs-until%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The first sentence means that Mendoza lost his first two matches and then won his third match. The second sentence means that Mendoza won his first two matches, but lost the third. However, the second sentence would not be used by a native speaker.
It was not until X(time) that Y(event).
is a commonly used construction in English, and could be rephrased as
Z(subject) did not Y(verb phrase) until X(time). (e.g. - Mendoza did not win until his third match.)
However, your second sentence is a form that I have never seen used. I cannot quite get to the bottom of why this is, but one obvious point is that it can be easily rephrased to a more concise form:
Until his third match, Mendoza won.
Furthermore, to me, there should be a certain continuity to Y in
It was until X(time) that Y(state).
For example,
It was until his third match that Mendoza was unhappy.
This makes perfect sense and would be used by native speakers. But winning a match is an event, rather than a continuous state, so I don't think "won" fits in this construction. However, I'm not sure why this is. Hopefully a linguist can enlighten us.
answered yesterday
Tim FosterTim Foster
616113
2
The "it was" structure is positive and therefore redundant for a positive statement, which is why it feels so awkward there. Also, putting the subject at the end is awkward as well (outside of poetry or highly narrative styles). In contrast, "it was not" is perfectly fine to use. You can see why if you examine your own early sections - "It was not" is simpler than the structure required to replace it. For your final example, I would still prefer "Mendoza was unhappy until his third match."
– Jeutnarg
yesterday
add a comment |
The first sentence means that Mendoza lost his first two matches and then won his third match. The second sentence means that Mendoza won his first two matches, but lost the third. However, the second sentence would not be used by a native speaker.
It was not until X(time) that Y(event).
is a commonly used construction in English, and could be rephrased as
Z(subject) did not Y(verb phrase) until X(time). (e.g. - Mendoza did not win until his third match.)
However, your second sentence is a form that I have never seen used. I cannot quite get to the bottom of why this is, but one obvious point is that it can be easily rephrased to a more concise form:
Until his third match, Mendoza won.
Furthermore, to me, there should be a certain continuity to Y in
It was until X(time) that Y(state).
For example,
It was until his third match that Mendoza was unhappy.
This makes perfect sense and would be used by native speakers. But winning a match is an event, rather than a continuous state, so I don't think "won" fits in this construction. However, I'm not sure why this is. Hopefully a linguist can enlighten us.
answered yesterday
Tim FosterTim Foster
616113
2
The "it was" structure is positive and therefore redundant for a positive statement, which is why it feels so awkward there. Also, putting the subject at the end is awkward as well (outside of poetry or highly narrative styles). In contrast, "it was not" is perfectly fine to use. You can see why if you examine your own early sections - "It was not" is simpler than the structure required to replace it. For your final example, I would still prefer "Mendoza was unhappy until his third match."
– Jeutnarg
yesterday
add a comment |
The first sentence means that Mendoza lost his first two matches and then won his third match. The second sentence means that Mendoza won his first two matches, but lost the third. However, the second sentence would not be used by a native speaker.
It was not until X(time) that Y(event).
is a commonly used construction in English, and could be rephrased as
Z(subject) did not Y(verb phrase) until X(time). (e.g. - Mendoza did not win until his third match.)
However, your second sentence is a form that I have never seen used. I cannot quite get to the bottom of why this is, but one obvious point is that it can be easily rephrased to a more concise form:
Until his third match, Mendoza won.
Furthermore, to me, there should be a certain continuity to Y in
It was until X(time) that Y(state).
For example,
It was until his third match that Mendoza was unhappy.
This makes perfect sense and would be used by native speakers. But winning a match is an event, rather than a continuous state, so I don't think "won" fits in this construction. However, I'm not sure why this is. Hopefully a linguist can enlighten us.
answered yesterday
Tim FosterTim Foster
616113
The first sentence means that Mendoza lost his first two matches and then won his third match. The second sentence means that Mendoza won his first two matches, but lost the third. However, the second sentence would not be used by a native speaker.
It was not until X(time) that Y(event).
is a commonly used construction in English, and could be rephrased as
Z(subject) did not Y(verb phrase) until X(time). (e.g. - Mendoza did not win until his third match.)
However, your second sentence is a form that I have never seen used. I cannot quite get to the bottom of why this is, but one obvious point is that it can be easily rephrased to a more concise form:
Until his third match, Mendoza won.
Furthermore, to me, there should be a certain continuity to Y in
It was until X(time) that Y(state).
For example,
It was until his third match that Mendoza was unhappy.
This makes perfect sense and would be used by native speakers. But winning a match is an event, rather than a continuous state, so I don't think "won" fits in this construction. However, I'm not sure why this is. Hopefully a linguist can enlighten us.
answered yesterday
Tim FosterTim Foster
616113
answered yesterday
Tim FosterTim Foster
616113
answered yesterday
Tim FosterTim Foster
616113
answered yesterday
Tim FosterTim Foster
616113
616113
2
The "it was" structure is positive and therefore redundant for a positive statement, which is why it feels so awkward there. Also, putting the subject at the end is awkward as well (outside of poetry or highly narrative styles). In contrast, "it was not" is perfectly fine to use. You can see why if you examine your own early sections - "It was not" is simpler than the structure required to replace it. For your final example, I would still prefer "Mendoza was unhappy until his third match."
– Jeutnarg
yesterday
add a comment |
2
The "it was" structure is positive and therefore redundant for a positive statement, which is why it feels so awkward there. Also, putting the subject at the end is awkward as well (outside of poetry or highly narrative styles). In contrast, "it was not" is perfectly fine to use. You can see why if you examine your own early sections - "It was not" is simpler than the structure required to replace it. For your final example, I would still prefer "Mendoza was unhappy until his third match."
– Jeutnarg
yesterday
2
2
The "it was" structure is positive and therefore redundant for a positive statement, which is why it feels so awkward there. Also, putting the subject at the end is awkward as well (outside of poetry or highly narrative styles). In contrast, "it was not" is perfectly fine to use. You can see why if you examine your own early sections - "It was not" is simpler than the structure required to replace it. For your final example, I would still prefer "Mendoza was unhappy until his third match."
– Jeutnarg
yesterday
The "it was" structure is positive and therefore redundant for a positive statement, which is why it feels so awkward there. Also, putting the subject at the end is awkward as well (outside of poetry or highly narrative styles). In contrast, "it was not" is perfectly fine to use. You can see why if you examine your own early sections - "It was not" is simpler than the structure required to replace it. For your final example, I would still prefer "Mendoza was unhappy until his third match."
– Jeutnarg
yesterday
add a comment |
Sentence 1 means Mendoza wins starting with his third match.
Sentence 2 does not make sense; it sounds very awkward.
Another way to rephrase #1 is "Mendoza did not win until his third match."
answered yesterday
Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee
1264
New contributor
Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Can you help me delete 'not until' and 'that'? I want to see the ordinary sentence.
– Y. zeng
yesterday
1
Sentence 2 is certainly "awkward", but I'd say it's syntactically valid, and would mean Mendoza (consistently) won until his third match (with the implication that he lost the third match, his "winning streak" having ended).
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
add a comment |
Sentence 1 means Mendoza wins starting with his third match.
Sentence 2 does not make sense; it sounds very awkward.
Another way to rephrase #1 is "Mendoza did not win until his third match."
answered yesterday
Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee
1264
New contributor
Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Can you help me delete 'not until' and 'that'? I want to see the ordinary sentence.
– Y. zeng
yesterday
1
Sentence 2 is certainly "awkward", but I'd say it's syntactically valid, and would mean Mendoza (consistently) won until his third match (with the implication that he lost the third match, his "winning streak" having ended).
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
add a comment |
Sentence 1 means Mendoza wins starting with his third match.
Sentence 2 does not make sense; it sounds very awkward.
Another way to rephrase #1 is "Mendoza did not win until his third match."
answered yesterday
Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee
1264
New contributor
Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Sentence 1 means Mendoza wins starting with his third match.
Sentence 2 does not make sense; it sounds very awkward.
Another way to rephrase #1 is "Mendoza did not win until his third match."
answered yesterday
Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee
1264
New contributor
Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee
1264
New contributor
Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee
1264
answered yesterday
Paul S. LeePaul S. Lee
1264
1264
New contributor
Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Paul S. Lee is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Can you help me delete 'not until' and 'that'? I want to see the ordinary sentence.
– Y. zeng
yesterday
1
Sentence 2 is certainly "awkward", but I'd say it's syntactically valid, and would mean Mendoza (consistently) won until his third match (with the implication that he lost the third match, his "winning streak" having ended).
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
add a comment |
Can you help me delete 'not until' and 'that'? I want to see the ordinary sentence.
– Y. zeng
yesterday
1
Sentence 2 is certainly "awkward", but I'd say it's syntactically valid, and would mean Mendoza (consistently) won until his third match (with the implication that he lost the third match, his "winning streak" having ended).
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
Can you help me delete 'not until' and 'that'? I want to see the ordinary sentence.
– Y. zeng
yesterday
Can you help me delete 'not until' and 'that'? I want to see the ordinary sentence.
– Y. zeng
yesterday
1
1
Sentence 2 is certainly "awkward", but I'd say it's syntactically valid, and would mean Mendoza (consistently) won until his third match (with the implication that he lost the third match, his "winning streak" having ended).
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
Sentence 2 is certainly "awkward", but I'd say it's syntactically valid, and would mean Mendoza (consistently) won until his third match (with the implication that he lost the third match, his "winning streak" having ended).
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
add a comment |
- Mendoza did not won until his third match
- Mendoza won until his third match
answered yesterday
PremlathaPremlatha
92
New contributor
Premlatha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Given the question is obviously from a non-native speaker, I think you should explicitly point out that no native speaker would actually use his version 2, even though strictly speaking it's syntactically valid, and has the same meaning as your perfectly natural rephrasing.
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
2
The first is ungrammatical
– Laurel
yesterday
add a comment |
- Mendoza did not won until his third match
- Mendoza won until his third match
answered yesterday
PremlathaPremlatha
92
New contributor
Premlatha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Given the question is obviously from a non-native speaker, I think you should explicitly point out that no native speaker would actually use his version 2, even though strictly speaking it's syntactically valid, and has the same meaning as your perfectly natural rephrasing.
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
2
The first is ungrammatical
– Laurel
yesterday
add a comment |
- Mendoza did not won until his third match
- Mendoza won until his third match
answered yesterday
PremlathaPremlatha
92
New contributor
Premlatha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
- Mendoza did not won until his third match
- Mendoza won until his third match
answered yesterday
PremlathaPremlatha
92
New contributor
Premlatha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
PremlathaPremlatha
92
New contributor
Premlatha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered yesterday
PremlathaPremlatha
92
answered yesterday
PremlathaPremlatha
92
92
New contributor
Premlatha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Premlatha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Premlatha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Given the question is obviously from a non-native speaker, I think you should explicitly point out that no native speaker would actually use his version 2, even though strictly speaking it's syntactically valid, and has the same meaning as your perfectly natural rephrasing.
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
2
The first is ungrammatical
– Laurel
yesterday
add a comment |
Given the question is obviously from a non-native speaker, I think you should explicitly point out that no native speaker would actually use his version 2, even though strictly speaking it's syntactically valid, and has the same meaning as your perfectly natural rephrasing.
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
2
The first is ungrammatical
– Laurel
yesterday
Given the question is obviously from a non-native speaker, I think you should explicitly point out that no native speaker would actually use his version 2, even though strictly speaking it's syntactically valid, and has the same meaning as your perfectly natural rephrasing.
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
Given the question is obviously from a non-native speaker, I think you should explicitly point out that no native speaker would actually use his version 2, even though strictly speaking it's syntactically valid, and has the same meaning as your perfectly natural rephrasing.
– FumbleFingers
yesterday
2
2
The first is ungrammatical
– Laurel
yesterday
The first is ungrammatical
– Laurel
yesterday
add a comment |
Y. zeng is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Y. zeng is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Y. zeng is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Y. zeng is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490565%2fnot-until-vs-until%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
As you can see from the answers, the second sentence is very strange. Although technically grammatical, it would normally not be phrased that way. Better phrasing would be Mendoza was winning until his third match.
– Jason Bassford
yesterday