The term in the predicate, (the Noble Prize / the Himalayas) is interpreted necessarily, as of some higher quality. The subject term is sought to be compared with it. When there is a negative particle the comparison fails. The subject term cannot stand comparison with the term in the predicate.
Writing about the Mahatma and the Noble Prize, a reader in a letter to The Hindu says: “There are so many laureates in the world but only one Mahatma. The title Mahatma is in no way comparable to any Noble Prize’ (Oct. 9, 2007).
What the reader means to say is quite clear. His very first sentence suggests it. But this suggestion is, unfortunately, contradicted by the next sentence. The second sentence can only mean hat the Noble Prize is something so great, a title like Mahatma cannot be compared to it.
The point made here can be readily seen in a sentence like: The Alps are in no way comparable to the Himalayas
In such sentences the noun that occurs after ‘comparable’ is understood as being far superior, bigger, etc, to the noun that precedes it, i.e. the subject. The Alps are comparable to the Himalayas suggests parity, equality. When the sentence is negated (by such negative expressions as no, in no way, etc the parity is rejected. The negative expression in no way rejects the parity in the strongest possible way.
The term in the predicate, (the Noble Prize / the Himalayas) is interpreted necessarily, as of some higher quality. The subject term is sought to be compared with it. When there is a negative particle the comparison fails. The subject term cannot stand comparison with the term in the predicate.
It is not easy to explain why this is so; i.e. it is not easy to explain why the structure bears this interpretation. It has something to do with the way information is organised in an English sentence. The subject is what is ‘given’, it is the starting point. The new information is in the predicate. But a full explanation in terms of the ‘given’ and ‘the new’ is beyond the scope of this column.
But we may note how structure overrides our intent—a point which I have frequently made, following Chomsky. The writer clearly did not intend to say what his sentence means. But the sentence gives a meaning quite the opposite of what he wants to say.
To get the meaning he wanted to convey, the writer should have said: ‘There are many laureates in the world but only one Mahatma. A Noble Prize is in no way comparable to the title Mahatma.’ (Notice the switch. The subject of the author’s sentence is now in the predicate. What was in the predicate is now in the subject position.)
In a famous exchange in the American Presidential election some years ago, the presidential hopeful Robert Quale was snubbed by a senator who said: ‘You are no Kennedy.’ This sentence shows that the interpretation suggested above of the sentence we began with is not dependent on the word ‘comparable’. In this structure the subject term is necessarily interpreted as being inferior to what is denoted by the predicate term. Prabhu Deva is no Michael Jackson; Hampi is no Angkor Watt; Even Tendulkar is no Bradman.
We usually think of comparison in terms of the degrees of comparison—positive, comparative and superlative. These structures are the ones usually discussed in grammar books, especially school grammar books. But comparison can be expressed in other ways also. We then have what may be called ‘implicit comparison.’
The topic is briefly dealt with in a lesson in my School Grammar Series: New Focus English Grammar and Composition, Book-8 (Macmillan 2007)
The Alps are in no way comparable to the Himalayas. This can be paraphrased as ‘The Himalayas are much bigger than the Alps’; or ‘The Alps are not as big as the Himalayas’. The first sentence is in the comparative degree; the second in the positive. But neither version gives the emphatic meaning found in The Alps are in no way comparable to the Himalayas.
Structural tautology
A famous structural tautology is the IE expression supposing if. If in case is a variant of this hardy specimen. If in case also appears as in case if. Sometimes higher authorities may feel that they would get more work force from outside in case if an employee exits from the organisation. DH Avenues, Oct 10, 2007, p.ii.
There is one more variant happily illustrated in the same article. If once the employees are demoralised, their way of thinking and their work culture will differ. What information is lost if you say ‘Once the employees are demoralised…’? Or ‘If the employees are demoralised…’? ‘If the employees are demoralised’ means the same As ‘Once the employees are demoralised. This tautology is particularly interesting since if and once are not, generally, synonymous.
Writing about the Mahatma and the Noble Prize, a reader in a letter to The Hindu says: “There are so many laureates in the world but only one Mahatma. The title Mahatma is in no way comparable to any Noble Prize’ (Oct. 9, 2007).
