| Author |
Message |
seguso
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:53 am
Post subject: Does not remove? |
|
|
Hello.
In Italy we have an idiom that, literally translated, sounds like "X
does not remove that Y". The meaning is that X being true does not make
Y false. For example:
"The fact you have focused on a specific topic DOES NOT REMOVE that you
have agreed with the whole"
What is the most natural way to express that in english?
Thanks a lot.
Best
Maurizio
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:36 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
"seguso" <maurizio.colucci@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129233216.320701.197130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | In Italy we have an idiom that, literally translated, sounds like "X
does not remove that Y". The meaning is that X being true does not make
Y false. For example:
"The fact you have focused on a specific topic DOES NOT REMOVE that you
have agreed with the whole"
What is the most natural way to express that in english?
|
Obviate may meet your need: "Your specific objection does
not obviate that you generally agreed." If this does not meet
your needs, consult a thesaurus (starting with obviate.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:46 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2005 12:53:36 -0700, "seguso" <maurizio.colucci@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Hello.
In Italy we have an idiom that, literally translated, sounds like "X
does not remove that Y". The meaning is that X being true does not make
Y false. For example:
"The fact you have focused on a specific topic DOES NOT REMOVE that you
have agreed with the whole"
What is the most natural way to express that in english?
Thanks a lot.
Best
Maurizio
|
It could be phrased many ways in American English, but "eliminate"
comes to mind. "The fact you have focused on a specific topic does
not eliminate the possibility that you have agreed with the whole"
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jamess
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:51 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
"seguso" <maurizio.colucci@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129233216.320701.197130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Hello.
In Italy we have an idiom that, literally translated, sounds like "X
does not remove that Y". The meaning is that X being true does not make
Y false. For example:
"The fact you have focused on a specific topic DOES NOT REMOVE that you
have agreed with the whole"
What is the most natural way to express that in english?
Thanks a lot.
Best
Maurizio
|
You could phrase it as:
"The fact that you have focused on a specific topic does not negate the fact
that you have agreed with the whole".
However, I'm sure somebody will come up with something better than my
somewhat wordy attempt  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seguso
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:06 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
What about "does not deny the fact that"? Thanks
Maurizio |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:14 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
On 13 Oct 2005 14:06:14 -0700, "seguso" <maurizio.colucci@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | What about "does not deny the fact that"? Thanks
Try 'alter' in place of 'deny'. |
"The fact you have focused on a specific topic does not alter the fact
that you have agreed with the whole."
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tor
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:24 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
"seguso" <maurizio.colucci@gmail.com> averred thusly in
news:1129237574.878520.246210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
| Quote: | What about "does not deny the fact that"? Thanks
Maurizio
|
You might say "does not rule out."
In AmE we often say "preclude."
X does not preclude Y.
"Not liking a person does not preclude having great sex with them."
Don's "obviate" would be fine, but it's a word whose existence is not
widely known, even among well-educated AmE speakers.
Peace,
Tor
--
Bored? Check out Tor's Rants!
A Left-Libertarian's take on Life (kitty-cats and fixing cars),
the Universe (Maine) and Nothing (Politics).
http://torsrants.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seguso
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 4:24 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
| Perfect. I take it. Thank you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 6:52 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:24:10 -0500, Tor <torofmaine@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | "seguso" <maurizio.colucci@gmail.com> averred thusly in
news:1129237574.878520.246210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
What about "does not deny the fact that"? Thanks
Maurizio
You might say "does not rule out."
In AmE we often say "preclude."
X does not preclude Y.
"Not liking a person does not preclude having great sex with them."
Don's "obviate" would be fine, but it's a word whose existence is not
widely known, even among well-educated AmE speakers.
|
Perhaps the well-educated speakers in Maine are not as well-educated
as the speakers in the rest of the country.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Django Cat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:24:10 -0500, Tor <torofmaine@hotmail.com
wrote:
"seguso" <maurizio.colucci@gmail.com> averred thusly in
news:1129237574.878520.246210@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
What about "does not deny the fact that"? Thanks
Maurizio
You might say "does not rule out."
In AmE we often say "preclude."
X does not preclude Y.
"Not liking a person does not preclude having great sex with them."
Don's "obviate" would be fine, but it's a word whose existence is
not widely known, even among well-educated AmE speakers.
Perhaps the well-educated speakers in Maine are not as well-educated
as the speakers in the rest of the country.
|
Shouldn't this invlove buying into the whole enchilada somewhere?
DC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:32 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
"Shouldn't this invlove buying into the whole enchilada somewhere? "
Yes, and I don't think we are to take "remove" as anything but a
literal translation of the Italian phrase.
I think the answer is that there is no idiomatic expression in English
that perfect conveys the idea he's after. We would say something like,
"Just because X is true doesn't mean that Y is false." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 12:34 am
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
Django Cat wrote:
| Quote: |
Shouldn't this invlove buying into the whole enchilada somewhere?
DC
|
I think so, and I don't think we are to take "remove" as anything but a
literal translation of the Italian phrase.
I think the answer is that there is no idiomatic expression in English
that perfect conveys the idea he's after. We would say something like,
"X's being true doesn't mean that Y is false." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seguso
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
granatedit@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
I think the answer is that there is no idiomatic expression in English
that perfect conveys the idea he's after. We would say something like,
"X's being true doesn't mean that Y is false."
|
"the fact that X does not alter the fact that Y" converys the meaning
perfectly IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seguso
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2005 9:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
granatedit@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
I think the answer is that there is no idiomatic expression in English
that perfect conveys the idea he's after. We would say something like,
"X's being true doesn't mean that Y is false."
|
"the fact that X does not alter the fact that Y" conveys the meaning
perfectly IMHO. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Does not remove? |
|
|
seguso wrote:
| Quote: | Hello.
In Italy we have an idiom that, literally translated, sounds like "X
does not remove that Y". The meaning is that X being true does not make
Y false. For example:
|
We would say "They are not mutually exclusive." or "one doesn't negate
the other".
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in