expected <any> more than...

C

cannonkuo

Senior Member
Mandarin
For the British, this was a war at the margin of capability: fought at a distance of 8,000 miles with winter fast approaching; by a task force weakened by defense cuts; and in a political context of several years of negotiations over the transfer of sovereignty of the islands—hardly promising conditions for a British victory! As for the assumed Argentine outcome—the replacement of the Galtieri regime with a civilian anti-nuclear regime—there was no a priori reason this outcome could be expected any more than several alternatives, such as a new junta or a civilian populist regime that would restore Argentine pride by means of its nuclear status.
(Book Reviews)

Will the meaning of the sentence remain unchanged without any?
 
    • This is a phrase used in many contexts.

    - I am a vegetarian so I would not eat chicken any more than I would eat beef.

    It means both are equally unlikely.
     
    Joetofu said:
    Could you rephrase your question? I don’t understand what you’re asking.
    Click to expand...
    I was baffled by the difference between "there was no a priori reason this outcome could be expected any more than several alternatives" and "there was no a priori reason this outcome could be expected more than several alternatives."

    kentix said:
    This is a phrase used in many contexts.

    - I am a vegetarian so I would not eat chicken any more than I would eat beef.

    It means both are equally unlikely.
    Click to expand...
    So, both a priori reasons and several alternatives make it unlikely that this outcome could be expected. Is that correct?
     
    cannonkuo said:
    I was baffled by the difference between "there was no a priori reason this outcome could be expected any more than several alternatives" and "there was no a priori reason this outcome could be expected more than several alternatives."
    Click to expand...
    Yes, your OP makes it clear that you're baffled by the use of any. I was asking about your question in #4:
    cannonkuo said:
    “Any” is used because of “ no a priori reason ,” correct?
    Click to expand...
    • If "a priori" were omitted from the sentence, the overall meaning of the sentence wouldn't be altered significantly. The use of "any" is unrelated to the use of a priori.
    • "Any" goes with "no." Without no or another negative, any wouldn't belong in the sentence.
     
    Joetofu said:
    No. It means "this outcome" was just as likely as any one of the "several alternative" outcomes.
    Click to expand...
    What? Now I'm confused. " There was no a priori reason this outcome could be expected any more than several alternatives."
    According to Kentix, "a priori reason" and "several alternatives" are unlikely.
     
    cannonkuo said:
    According to Kentix, "a priori reason" and "several alternatives" are unlikely.
    Click to expand...
    Like i said, it's used in many different contexts. The exact meaning is dependent on the context. You have to interpret the intent.

    - I wouldn't eat chicken any more than I would eat beef.

    This says (indirectly) that I would not eat beef. It compares eating chicken to beef and says I do no more chicken-eating than beef-eating. And since I eat no beef therefore the conclusion can be made that I eat no chicken.

    - there was no a priori reason this outcome could be expected any more than several alternatives

    This says several alternatives exist. None of them is highly favored compared to the others. And it says the alternative specified - the replacement of the Galtieri regime with a civilian anti-nuclear regime - has no specific reason to be more likely than any of the others. So if none of those are highly favored and this one is not more favored than those others, then it's impossible to make a good prediction about what will really happen. Any of them could happen, not just the most desirable one.
     
    Last edited:
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top