Export thread

So, someone came to me and asked me about an English sentence she saw in an English as a second language textbook. The sentence is:

"There is no mother but loves her children."

Apparently this means "There is no mother who does not love her children."

While I think of myself as a native English speaker, I've never seen this sort of sentence structure before. If I had to use "but" in this sentence, I'd want to say something like "There are no mothers but those who love their children."

Does this sort of structure actually exist? Perhaps an archaic usage that's not commonly seen now? Or is the textbook wrong?

As a soon-to-be-fully-qualified EFL teacher, I would say that sentence is wrong.

At least I've personally never witnessed such a sentence structure.

I've seen but used like that before, but it's a bit archaic.
if you throw the word "that" in there, it makes more sense if you're not used to the word used that way: "There is no mother but that loves her children." The word "that" is not a strict requirement, however.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/but

It shouldn't be in an ESL text, though, because it's a very rare usage.

That sounds like something out of Shakespeare.

Tinwhistler said:

I've seen but used like that before, but it's a bit archaic.
if you throw the word \"that\" in there, it makes more sense if you're not used to the word used that way: \"There is no mother but that loves her children.\" The word \"that\" is not a strict requirement, however.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/but

It shouldn't be in an ESL text, though, because it's a very rare usage.

Click to expand...

^ Pretty much this.

I've read sentences like that, but don't think I've ever heard anyone use it in conversation.

I love those cheap ESL books that teach people to speak like Skwisgaar Skwigelf.

Double agreed that it shouldn't be in any esl book. A native english speaker may know what that means, but it's going to sound very odd and archaic.

They'd probably think you're quoting a bad proverb.

fade said:

I love those cheap ESL books that teach people to speak like Skwisgaar Skwigelf.

Click to expand...

It could teaches thems to talks like Toki.

I'm certified to teach high school English, and that doesn't look right at all. That's either some sort of typo, or a badly written book. If it's an old sentence structure style, it certainly has no place in modern English.

It's correct, but old. Like 1800's old.



You know, when I was a child.

---------- Post added at 10:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:06 AM ----------

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/But?jss=1

Check out #7:

7. who not; that not: No leaders worthy of the name ever existed but they were optimists.

Click to expand...

So... that means no leaders worthy of the name ever existed, unless they were optimists?

yes. It means of all the kinds of leaders, the only ones worthy of bearing the title are optimists.

I think that one is closer to... No one was worthy of the title, but those that held the title were optimists.

i.e. They hope to live up to the name.

You can still find this structure in old proverbs and idioms, such as "there but for the grace of God." Like everyone else said, it's incredibly rare and far too confusing for an ESL student. That book is awful.

sixpackshaker said:

I think that one is closer to... No one was worthy of the title, but those that held the title were optimists.

i.e. They hope to live up to the name.

Click to expand...

That would probably be correct if there was a period or semi-colon before the 'but'.

No leaders worthy of the name ever existed. But they were optimists.

Like that, I can see your definition. But your definition is pretty standard and doesn't fit the archaic use of the word that Dave and I posted out of the dictionary.

Wildsoul;313410][quote=fade said:

I love those cheap ESL books that teach people to speak like Skwisgaar Skwigelf.

Click to expand...

It could teaches thems to talks like Toki.[/QUOTE]

Deys both talks like dats.

Cool beans. I shall take what I have learned from this thread and teach it to others.

CynicismKills;313835][quote=Wildsoul;313410][quote=fade said:

I love those cheap ESL books that teach people to speak like Skwisgaar Skwigelf.

Click to expand...

It could teaches thems to talks like Toki.[/QUOTE]

Deys both talks like dats.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but Toki sounds likes a goofball dildo.

Dave said:

It's correct, but old. Like 1800's old.


You know, when I was a child.

Click to expand...

Stop trying to pass yourself off as younger then you are... you should know better at your age.

I can't see why that would be in an ESL book. May as well just have them read Chausser to teach them modern english

Covar;313371][quote=Tinwhistler said:

I've seen but used like that before, but it's a bit archaic.
if you throw the word \"that\" in there, it makes more sense if you're not used to the word used that way: \"There is no mother but that loves her children.\" The word \"that\" is not a strict requirement, however.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/but

It shouldn't be in an ESL text, though, because it's a very rare usage.

Click to expand...

^ Pretty much this.

I've read sentences like that, but don't think I've ever heard anyone use it in conversation.[/QUOTE]

I sometimes use that sort of thing in conversation. But I also say 'nigh' instead of near. It's mostly a foolishness thing.

I do that too! I don't know exactly where I picked up the habit of using archaisms in conversation, but I now tend to do it naturally. It's probably from reading a lot as a child.