Tamara
September 19, 2006, 2:38pm
1
Hi
Before I knew only two patterns of ‘right use’ but not limited to :
include , but not <be > limited to , ….
For example : "Examples of <smth.> include, but are not limited to , the following: … "
and
2. including , but not limited to , ….
Right now I’m reading the phrase:
“Anomalies may be found during , but not limited to, the review, test, analysis, compilation, or use of software products or applicable documentation.”
Hmm.
I am sure it is the correct use, as this is one of the international (IEEE) professional standards (of the American origin :). )
But from here I see that but not limited to can be used much more easy and free – even in the formal texts.
Could you give a couple of examples of using but not (be) limited to (without include/including :)) to make me a bit more fluent with the phrase?
Yankee
September 19, 2006, 5:54pm
2
Hi Tamara
Whatever makes you think that natives speakers automatically write well? :lol:
It’s not unusual to see “but not limited to ” in formal writing.
For me that would be a very typical phrase in a contract.
That’s not “free and easy” usage; it’s standard.
That phrase is probably preceded mainly by, but not limited to, the word including (or some form of include).
Regarding examples, why not just google?
google.de/search?hl=en&clien … tnG=Search
google.de/search?hl=en&clien … tnG=Search
google.de/search?hl=en&clien … tnG=Search
-OR-
BNC:
sara.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/sa … limited+to
Amy
Tamara
September 19, 2006, 6:05pm
3
Hi Amy
Thank you for your help, but, as you can see from the first and last links, examples are mostly for
incude, but …
including, but
or
during, but….
I asked for some another examples of using the pattern.
Thanks a lot for your example.
Tamara
P.S. Do you actually believe that I ask questions here before I myself had a look in Google, dictionaries, BNC, … ?
:?
Yankee
September 19, 2006, 6:36pm
4
Tamara:
P.S. Do you actually believe that I ask questions here before I myself had a look in Google, dictionaries, BNC, … ?
:?
No, actually not. But since but not limited to and including are basically “joined at the hip”,
it’s not too easy to come up with examples excluding including . :lol: