"Aside from ___ , .." in positive sentences

さておき is used to more to move to a new topic and it's a bit formal. You can use 以外に to literally mean, "outside of"

ビール以外にもお酒が好きです。

(I added も because ビール is お酒 too)

-Tae Kim

How about rephrasing it like this:

ビールが苦手なんですけど、それ以外お酒が好きです。

or

ビール以外なら何でも飲む。

For just corrections I've noticed.

ビールしかお酒が好きじゃない
Aside from beer, [i] don't like alcohol.
→　Should be　ビール以外のお酒は、好きじゃない。 or ビールを除いて、お酒は好きじゃない。

ビールをおいてお酒が好きじゃない
→　ビールをおいて、（ほかに）好きなお酒はない。 or　ビールをおいて、お酒は好きじゃない。(These are still a little bit odd.)

ビールはさておき,お酒が好きです
Aside from beer, [i] like alcohol.
→　ビールはさておき、お酒は好きです。

ビール以外にもお酒が好きです。
→　ビール以外にも、お酒は好きです。

ビール以外にお酒が嫌いです
→　ビール以外のお酒が嫌いです or ビール以外にお酒は嫌いです

ビールが苦手なんですけど、それ以外お酒が好きです。
→　ビールが苦手なんですけど、それ以外、お酒は好きです。

英語の文が何を表しているのか（特に、その「ニュアンス」）はわからないので、日本語だけをみて、Yokohama さんの文についての感想を書きます。

まず、基本的な問題として、「ビール」は「お酒」にはいるかどうか、という問題があります。
入ると言えば入るのですが、そうかんたんには割り切れません。

私にとって、
　　ａ　 ビールを除いて、お酒は好きじゃない。
という文は、何となく落ち着きません。もちろん、間違いとか何とか言うほどのことではないのですが。
それに対して、
　　ｂ　ビール以外のお酒は、好きじゃない。
のほうは、何も問題ありません。
その原因はどこにあるのか。

「～をのぞいて」の使い方の問題か、あるいは、ａの文が「ビール→お酒」ということを前提にしているのに対し、ｂの文には「ビール←→お酒」という気持が少し入っている（「ビール」対「他のお酒」という対比が「以外」によってはっきりしている）からか、はわかりません。

次の例。
　　ｃ　ビールをおいて、（ほかに）好きなお酒はない。
　　ｄ　ビールをおいて、お酒は好きじゃない。

ｄはぜんぜんダメです。
ｃは、文法的に間違っているとは言えないけれど、まあ、ほとんど言わない文だなあ、と思います。「～をおいて」という表現の要求する文体・表現内容と、「好きなお酒はない」という言葉が合わないのでしょう。

　　ｅ　ビールはさておき,お酒は好きです。
私は言わない文ですが、他の人が言ったら、（何でこんなことを言うのに「さておき」なんて言葉を使うのかなあ）、とチラッと思うかもしれないということをのぞけば、よくわかる文です。

　　ｆ　ビール以外にも、お酒は好きです。
うーん。わかるんですが、、、、。うーん、なんかへんな感じが、、、。私の学生が（私は日本語教師です）作文でこの文を書いてきたら、ぜったい直します。「こうは言わないよ。」って。
その前にどんなことを書いているか（文脈）にもよりますが、例えば、
　　　ビール以外のお酒も好きです。
のような文に直します。

「ビール以外にも」で始まる文なら、
　　　ビール以外にも、好きなお酒はたくさん／いろいろ　あります。
のような文になります。

今、こう書いてみて、では、それはなぜなのか、と考えてみると、まったくわかりません。
「以外に」という言葉と、「好きだ」「あります」との使用制限が何かあるのでしょうか。なぞです。

　　ｇ　ビール以外のお酒が嫌いです。
　　ｈ　ビール以外にお酒は嫌いです。

ｇは、
　　　　ビール以外のお酒は嫌いです。
のように、「お酒は」にしたほうがいいでしょう。
　　　　私は、ビール以外のお酒が嫌いなんです。
だったら、「お酒が」でもいいのですが。

ｈは、ダメです。やはり、
　　　　ビール以外のお酒は嫌いです。
です。
あるいは、
　　　　ビール以外に好きなお酒はありません。
です。

　　ｉ　ビールが苦手なんですけど、それ以外、お酒は好きです。
なんだか、いわゆる「外国人の日本語」に聞こえます。
　　　ビールは苦手なんですけど、それ以外のお酒は好きです。

以上、人によって語感はけっこう違うものらしい、という報告です。

saburoo

お陰をありがとうございました、　三朗さん。

P.S.　　あなたのオンライン現代日本語文法文法書は　読んでいるところですが、　かなり面白くて、　詳しくて、　有用さに極まりのないものであると思いますよ。　　著して、　このバカな人に読ませて、　いただいてありがとうございました。  予想通り　心憎い本を分かりやすいとは思わずだというのに、　何としても頑張るつもりです。　　読んでしまうに時間が沢山かかるかもしれないのに、　何としても頑張るつもりです。　　hmmm... 　お喋りに旨がないようですね。　　だから　もう黙ります。。。　　（ひどい書き方や恐ろしい日本語文法の会得をお許容しになっていただきませんでしょうか？）

Last edited by ReceptviCanatvr (2006-10-02 20:32:12)

I always thought that 好き always come with が ^^; Then I guess I'm wrong.

If I change the sentence this way with the addition of 私は

私はビールが苦手なんですけど、それ以外、お酒が好きです。

in this case does it still remain as お酒は好きです?

私はビールが苦手なんですけど、それ以外、お酒は好きです。

You're helpful as usual, Yokohama ^^

Last edited by painsama (2006-10-03 00:32:47)

The expression certainly has an odd origin.  Although English speakers are not really conscious of this fact any longer, the 'except' in "I got all A's except one B" is actually an imperative.  It's equivalent to 除け. 

You're right about it not being quite grammatically/logically correct.  It would be more appropriate, if it were:

All of my scores/grades were A's, excepting one of them.
All of my scores/grades were A's, if you except one of them.
Notwithstanding one of my scores, which was a B, all of my scores were A's.
(if I had not) Had I not gotten a B, all of my scores would have been A's.
If you failed to take into account the one B I got, (you would say) all my scores were A's.
All of my scores were A's, save for one B.
All of my scores other than the one B, were A's.

Of course, these are not as popular.  English speakers tend to favour grammatically and logically incorrect phrasings over more correct but less natural-sounding phrasings.  That is, in my opinion, what makes English so difficult to learn for foreigners -  that the foreingers have to learn how to be illogical and use unintuitive grammar in order to sound "natural". 

That sounds good to me.

Thanks again, ヨコハマさん.

Thank you ReceptviCanatvr.

English learners can always be seriously hampered by a negative outlook. 'Why isn't my English natural?'

Can I actually learn a natural English? Can I finally manage to learn to 'write and talk right' in English?
If I practice, of course I can! For my natural English, I know, it is up to me to study harder and practice properly.

It is the practice that counts, but I know there is no reaching to 'sound natural' from 'sound foreign.'

Thank you for the corrections.

I did this on purpose. When I first wrote this sentence I didn't add the article 'a'.  After thinking of the surroundings of native countries in English, I was confused about 'What is natural English?' There are a lot of countries which mother tongue is English all over the world, and there seemed to be a lot of natural English languages, so I finally did add the article 'a' in front of the word  'natural English.'
But I understand it wrong now.

Thank you again Faumdano.

I agree with Taniwha.  Although at first "a natural English" seemed to be incorrect, upon hearing your reasoning as to why you chose it, I thought your choice to use it to have been a perfectly valid and correct one.  However, I can't say that it doesn't sound a little bit strange. 

If you wanted to remove all strangeness from the phrase, you could say "Can I actually learn a natural form of English?" or "Can I actually learn one of the forms/varieties of English termed 'natural'?" or something similar.  There are many possibilities.

On the subject of strange phrasings, the following by some might be considered a bit weird:

This is completely correct.  However, there are many English-speakers who would say that it is not.  The reason they will think that, is that they will think you to have meant to say:  "But I understand [that] it is wrong now."  They will suppose that you had omitted the "is".  In fact, this is an instance of the 'double accusative' or you could say that it is a sentence containing an elliptical embedded phrase;  that is, it is short for "But I understand it to be wrong now" - the "to be" being omitted.

A phrase of this sort would be much more at home in the England of antiquity.  They would have recognized the correctness of the phrase, however I can't say the same for people alive today, particularly those in America.

Some more examples of phrases of this type:

I think you a fool  (I think you to be a fool / that you are a fool)
I think you foolish  (I think you to be foolish / that you are foolish)
I supposed him wrong  (ditto)
I find it strange (ditto)

To minimize the possibility that a native English speaker will find this strange, you could say, "But I understand it to be wrong now."  You may also say, "I understand that it is wrong now," "I understand it is wrong now," or "I understand the incorrectness/impropriety of it now."

In summary, it is perfectly correct, but others may not see it that way.  In fact, there is nothing grammatically or logically incorrect with the majority of what you say.  I am really impressed by your grasp of English and language in general - your English being far better than that of MANY native English speakers. The only problem with your way of writing is that it is sometimes unnatural, but I often disregard what is natural-sounding myself in favour of what is more correct from a logical standpoint.

Faumdano-

The reason why English grammarians say that this is a mistake is that "right" is an adjective.  It needs to be an adverb, since the sense of the sentence suggests that "right" is modifying the verb here. This is not grammatically incorrect, though.  It is only logically incorrect, depending upon what you mean to say. 

"To talk right" means "to talk and in so doing be right". 
"To talk correctly" means "to talk in a manner that is correct"

A little known fact is that a great many verbs can be used as copulae ("to be").   Let me give you an example that will better illustrate the difference:

They entered noisy
They entered noisily

Most would say that the first is incorrect, but THAT is actually incorrect.  The first suggests that "they" were noisy and that their being noisy was entirely irrelevant to the act of entering.  The second says that that their manner of entrance was noisy.  So the second doesn't say anything about the noise that they were making before or after entering - only that they were noisy while entering and their noisiness was in the way they entered; the first in essence says that they may have been noisy prior to entering and were at least noisy during and after the act of entering, but that it wasn't the case that their noisiness was in their way of entering - it was just incidental.

The reason this is is that, in the first sentence the verb "entered" is functioning in the capacity of a copula - that is, it is joining the predicate adjective "noisy" and the subject "they" just as "are" would and describing the subject - and in the second sentence, "noisily" is modifying the verb and indicating in what manner they entered.

Back to the phrase "to talk right," the irony of English grammarians describing this as being incorrect is in the fact that English grammarians for centuries have apotheosized the Latin language and attempted to model English after it out of a belief that it was perfect.  Latin grammar though, holds that this is not incorrect.  There are many instances in Latin where nouns and adjectives have been converted to adverbs without a change to the spelling of the word.  For example, 'quid' in Latin means 'what' but for some reason over time it developed the meaning of 'why' (an adverb) as well.  English speakers centuries ago actually would try to emulate this quirk of the Latin language with phrases like "I am something interested in this".  'Something' is a noun and yet, here, it is being used as an adverb to modify the adjective 'interested' (techinically 'interested' is a perfect passive participle, a verbal adjective).  In fact, the phrase "a bit" as in "this is a bit strange" is obviously a noun, and yet it is being used adverbally to modify 'strange,' so why is it okay to convert one noun/adjective into an adverb and not another, as "right"?  Grammarians, in my opinion, are of a very low quality these days, particularly English grammarians.  For example, seventy seven percent of the usage panel of The American Heritage Book of English Usage voted that "We are seeking a plan to gradually, systematically, and economically relieve the burden." was incorrect and shouldn't be thought to be an example of correct usage on the basis that the infinitive was being divided by too many adverbs, whereas 87% of the panel thought sentences such as "We expect our output to more than double in a year." were acceptable!  What?!  That sentence should be "We expect out output to increase by a rate greater than double." or at least "We expect our output to do more than double."  There is literally NOTHING grammatically or logically correct about the sentence that they approved.  It is a really common phrasing, but absolutely incorrect.  On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with split infinitives which are actually quite necessary in many cases.  English grammarians have for whatever reason taken up their crosses against a linguistic phenomenon which they not only don't have any evidence to suggest is erroneous, but which is absolutely necessary in some cases to remove ambiguity!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split_Infinitive

So, going back to "to talk right" yet again, if you suppose Latin to be a supreme language after which all other languages should be modeled, then this is correct and has the meaning that its users mean for it to have;  if you don't suppose this then, the phrase is still grammatically corrrect but doesn't, according to the current rules of English grammar, have the meaning that its users intend.

Last edited by ReceptviCanatvr (2006-10-05 01:43:50)

Thanks for the suggestions/corrections, when I first learned しか I remember having to correct myself a few times when I accidentaly equated the meaning to 'aside from' and forgot to always use a negative ending, so just wanted to investigate what could be used. I thought there would perhaps have been a simple particle/grammar I missed somewhere that could be used to exclude something from a broader statement, but it seems in this case it would be better (more natural) to just rephrase it slightly? 

I think Yokohama mentioned 除く earlier but with a negative sentence, so is there anything strange with,

ビールを除いてお酒が好きだ or ビールを除けばお酒が好きだ ?

Thank you for the explanation, ReceptviCanatvr.

It covinced me enough and I understand that it would be safe to avoid using the word 'right' as adverb for me.