<P>I've seen, though not often, this pattern : not so much A as B.</P>
<P>Let me make an expression‎ using that.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>- He is not so much a singer as a dancer. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>As far as I know, this is similar to saying,</P>
<P> </P>
<P>- He is a dancer, rather than a singer. </P>
<P> </P>
<P>The bottom line is, I guess, He is a DANCER. The latter part is the essence.</P>
<P>Not that difficult to understand.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>How about this one?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>- The nature of artistic merit is not so much easy to define as to recognize.</P>
<P> </P>
<P>It may look simple to you, but not to me. It's confusing. I can't tell for sure which the author is saying easier. There are two things to compare, and one of them is easier than the other, right?</P>
<P> </P>
<P>Is the sentence implying that to define is easier than to recognize or the other way around? Is the author trying to focus is 'recognize' or 'define'? </P>
<P> </P>
<P>
<STYLE>P{margin-top:2px;margin-bottom:2px;}</STYLE>
</P>
<!-- -->
첫댓글The sentence seems to be shortened from: ... not so much easy to define as easy to recognize. So it is saying that it is easy to recognize rather than easy to define. In general, recognizing something is normally easier than defining it.
I see. The fact that recognizing something is generally easier than defining it implies, I guess, that the extent of the languages we use surely have some limit. Otherwise, we could define it with ease.
첫댓글 The sentence seems to be shortened from: ... not so much easy to define as easy to recognize. So it is saying that it is easy to recognize rather than easy to define. In general, recognizing something is normally easier than defining it.
I see. The fact that recognizing something is generally easier than defining it implies, I guess, that the extent of the languages we use surely have some limit. Otherwise, we could define it with ease.