0

Is there a tidy way to represent the meaning of the following?

A differs from B (in some substantive/relevant way), even though they do share non-trivial similarities.

KillingTime
  • 6,206
11qq00
  • 150
  • 1
    This could do with a real world example of what you mean. – KillingTime Aug 30 '21 at 18:24
  • @KillingTime: This question is motivated by my preceding (also first on here) question, the example in that being "dietary needs of dogs as compared to people" as pertaining to compatibility in one direction. There are surely boundless more cases of which many fine examples; such as wheeled vehicles that are powered by a human versus internal combustion engine, as pertaining to practicality in one or+ practical matters (commuting/transports/other considerations). – 11qq00 Aug 30 '21 at 18:37

2 Answers2

0

A differs substantially from B, although they do have some non-trivial similarities.
or
A differs substantially from B, although they do share some non-trivial features.

(I prefer have similarities to share similarities).

substantially (adv.)

In essence; essentially, intrinsically. OED

If substantially is too strong, I suggest A differs significantly from B, although ...

DjinTonic
  • 21,299
  • How would you state that "Marie has different needs (or ratios of needs) than Casey (even though they do share overlapping needs in the same context), to an extent that especial attention must be given in taking care of Marie's needs with the same figurative shoe size as you would for Casey.". – 11qq00 Aug 30 '21 at 19:04
  • I would convey this with the choice of the adverb: substantially/significantly/very/rather/somewhat/slightly, etc.... different needs. Then you could go on to clarify/explain. – DjinTonic Aug 30 '21 at 19:06
0

There’s not going to be one word for this, but here’s a shorter version:

Despite similarities, A and B differ substantively.

Be sure you mean substantive (meaningful) rather than substantial (large) — and note the pronunciation of substantively (in case you have to read your paper aloud).

Tinfoil Hat
  • 17,008
  • Aye, that is shorter, thankyou! What if the given construction is meant to complement another point (rather than stand on its own), e.g. "It's not a bad idea to give A some of the same treatment as you do B, but not too much." with the reason being {your answer}. Would it be appropriate colloquially to pair the premise/sub-premise and conclusion into single sentence by linking with an em-dash (or a pause when spoken) and a word like "but"? (My particular motivation isn't an academic paper, but recognizing where/how different tones be appropriate is definitely an important skill.) – 11qq00 Aug 30 '21 at 20:43
  • Show me this sentence you're envisioning — with its em dash and/or but. – Tinfoil Hat Aug 30 '21 at 20:52
  • “My dogs relish in much of foods I eat, as I oft oblige them —but in moderation, since despite the similarities, dogs' and humans' dietary needs differ substantively (and also, somewhat related, so that they don't get fat).” – 11qq00 Aug 30 '21 at 20:59
  • My dogs relish much of the food I eat. But I oblige them in moderation; despite similarities, the dietary needs of dogs and humans are substantively different. – Tinfoil Hat Aug 30 '21 at 21:23
  • They can't relish the food unless you oblige them, so there's no need to say that you oblige them. You can go straight to how you oblige them. – Tinfoil Hat Aug 30 '21 at 21:33
  • I see your point about redundancy. But in light of that, then from purely syntactical-logical-translative standpoint the "But" is still redundant; this can be resolved by simply removing it, or adding even more additional words, as in :"But only in moderation do I oblige ..". – 11qq00 Aug 30 '21 at 21:36
  • You ask "Is there a context-free* concise construction..." and then “My dogs relish in much [...] so that they don't get fat).”* and then "How would you state that "Marie has different [...] as you would for Casey." -- These is not "context-free." Other languages may differ but the importance of context in English cannot be overstated. Could you please give the actual sentence in which you intend to use the word? – Greybeard Aug 30 '21 at 21:59
  • But works fine. Think of it like this: My dogs relish much of the food I eat. But I don't always give them what they ask for; – Tinfoil Hat Aug 30 '21 at 22:23
  • @Greybeard: I already provided a sentence I was toying amongst the two you quoted snippets from, which seem both conformable to use of words provided in Tinfoil Hat's answer to some degree. I welcome any critique or analysis from you concerning any hypothetical or actual sentences that I or someone else (such as yo) care to construct. Tinfoil Hat: Yeah, it's basically the same , however: in the actual sentence you suggest, the verbal clause directly following after "But" has nearly opposite meaning, one with a negation of [accommodation] whereas your explanatory one in affirmative mode. – 11qq00 Aug 31 '21 at 00:17
  • No, in this case, giving in moderation means the same as not giving in excess. – Tinfoil Hat Aug 31 '21 at 02:23
  • If your goal is communication, try plain English... My dogs love to eat what I eat. But I don’t give them everything they beg for. If I did, they wouldn’t eat the dog food that fulfills their dietary needs... – Tinfoil Hat Aug 31 '21 at 02:34
  • @Tinfoil Hat: Your preceding "plain English" offer is decent, although it doesn't explicitly indicate that I give them any of what I eat (although I suppose that that's implied) let alone emphasize that I do indeed give them some of my [non- dog-]food. – 11qq00 Aug 31 '21 at 02:36