2

In another post, Lord Esher was quoted as saying this sentence:

Any proposition the result of which would be to show that the common law of England is wholly unreasonable and unjust cannot be part of the common law of England. (Boldface mine.)

I wonder if this construction "Any proposition... cannot be..." is natural in Present-day English (PDE). Shouldn't it have the construction "No proposition... can be..." as follows?

No proposition the result of which would be to show that the common law of England is wholly unreasonable and unjust can be part of the common law of England.

If it's not natural in PDE, was it natural when Lord Esher uttered this sentence? If so, when exactly was it?

EDIT

There seem to be at least a couple of prior questions questioning the validity of the Any...not construction:

(1) "Any club cannot use . . ." vs. "No club can use . . .", where @BarrieEngland cited ‘Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English’ as showing a rule against the first construction.

(2) Why can't "any" be used as subject in negative sentences, while "no" can?, asking why Any children didn't come doesn't work whereas No children came does. Here, @JohnLawler basically proposes a test to see if removing "not" would render the sentence ungrammatical.

I have yet to figure out, though, whether and how these prior answers would help resolve the issue at hand.

For example, in (1)'s example Please note that any club cannot use the copy machine after 8:00pm, removing not doesn't render it ungrammatical: Please note that any club can use the copy machine after 8:00pm, which means, according to @JohnLawler's answer in (2), that (1)'s example is grammatical as is, which is not in line with @BarrieEngland's answer there.

JK2
  • 6,553
  • You ask if the expression is natural. You seen. to be a native speaker; if you’re also in an English-speaking community, you should have some insight - . om whether i – Xanne May 10 '23 at 09:20
  • seen.=seem (4 more to go it says). – Xanne May 10 '23 at 09:23
  • 1
    Both of those formulations have the same logical structure: ¬ (∃x: P(x)) Q(x)), that is, there is no x with the property P such that x has the property Q. This can be expressed in English in a number of ways, and the propositions given are two of them. – John Lawler May 10 '23 at 16:46
  • 1
    Why would you consider it unnatural? In what respect? – alphabet May 10 '23 at 22:05
  • @alphabet I'm not saying it's unnatural but only asking if it's natural. – JK2 May 11 '23 at 06:49
  • @Greybeard The relative clause is the result of which would be to show that the common law of England is wholly unreasonable and unjust, which combines with proposition to form a nominal (N'), and then this N' combines with Any to form the subject NP. In the subject NP, the head is proposition, not result, so I don't understand how it means "the result cannot be...". – JK2 May 12 '23 at 00:44
  • You are right; I was wrong. I've removed my comment and looked at it again. The principle can be demonstrated as {Any dog, the puppies of which are brown} cannot be the father of black puppies. -> A specified dog cannot be the father of black puppies. – Greybeard May 12 '23 at 08:46
  • Your intuition about PDE is correct. The "any/cannot" version would be odd (though not unacceptable); today we're more likely to use the "no/can" version. However, I don't know whether or not it was more common in Lord Esher's day. – Joel Derfner Sep 04 '23 at 12:40
  • @JK2 Further to alphabet's Comment, I for two see the wording you used as much more clearly suggesting a belief posing as a query… – Robbie Goodwin Sep 16 '23 at 19:00
  • What are you really Asking? Whether either example is grammatically correct? To me, both seem to be. Whether the negative and positive versions boil down to the same thing? To me, they seem to. Something else? What might that be? – Robbie Goodwin Sep 16 '23 at 19:03
  • @RobbieGoodwin Please see the EDIT. – JK2 Sep 17 '23 at 04:07
  • Would it seem more natural if we shortened the modifier of "proposition" by replacing it with a pro-form: "Any such proposition cannot be part of the common law of England." – MarcInManhattan Sep 17 '23 at 05:58
  • While I don't recall the original wording, that Edit seems largely to want to compare 'Any club cannot…' to 'No club can…' but how is that legitimate? I see Joel as rather generous with ' "any/cannot" would be odd (though not unacceptable)'. I think today we're not merely 'more likely' but in fact virtually guaranteed to use 'no/can', and 'any/cannot' is so archaic it's more likely to be confusing than distinctive or stylish.

    Your ellipses hide the fact it's moving away from, not towards 'Any proposition… cannot be…'.

    More…

     – Robbie Goodwin Sep 17 '23 at 16:30
  • Further…

    The late-coming 'Any club cannot…' in the Edit almost means something by itself.

    The earlier 'Any proposition... cannot...' is by itself dangerously misleading. Far from providing a reasonable contraction, the chosen ellipses mask the meaning of the original 'Any proposition the result of which (blah lah la)…'

    Which boils down to comparing 'any thing…' to 'any thing which…'

    How is that reasonable?

    Sorry I left out huge swathes of technical vocabulary.

     – Robbie Goodwin Sep 17 '23 at 16:46
  • By the way, given the development in these Comments, wouldn't this Question have been better Posted in, for instance, SE Writing or English Language Learners? – Robbie Goodwin Sep 17 '23 at 16:47
  • If I knew how to do it, I'd recommend closing the topic and moving Comments to Chat. – Robbie Goodwin Sep 17 '23 at 16:48
  • @MarcInManhattan Would it seem less natural if we removed the modifier of "proposition": "Any proposition cannot be part of the common law of England." – JK2 Sep 18 '23 at 03:18
  • @JK2 That's a good question, although that version alters the meaning of the original. But yes, I think that both versions could be useful to consider when weighing this question. – MarcInManhattan Sep 18 '23 at 04:59

0 Answers0