4 ms·

But your interpretation is much, much weaker than "a not evacuated tunnel". If it's not a tunnel, it's still not an <i>evacuated</i> tunnel. But if it's "a no

But your interpretation is much, much weaker than "a not evacuated tunnel". If it's not a tunnel, it's still not an <i>evacuated</i> tunnel. But if it's "a not evacuated tunnel", then it must be a tunnel. Edit: Actually, I think with the article "an" between the "not" and the adjective, there is no way in English grammar to interpret the "not" to negate only the adjective instead of the whole adjective+noun "evacuated tunnel". Unfortunately I'm neither a native speaker, nor a linguist, so I cannot back it up with anything but feeling for the language and the fact that this is how I always see it used ;).

stcredzero 14y ago
> Edit: Actually, I think with the article "an" between the "not" and the adjective, there is no way in English grammar to interpret the "not" to negate only the adjective instead of the whole adjective+noun "evacuated tunnel". Well, if you add another "only" before "interpret" then you'd be correct. Otherwise, it is open to interpretation either way. Panel 11: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html