"would not also be" or "would also not be"

[n o s p a m p l e a s e]

1) This would also not be true representative.

OR

2) This would not also be true representative.

Which one is correct and what's the difference?

[Leslie Danks]

Neither is correct: it should be "truly representative".

"This would also not be truly representative" is idiomatic.

The equivalent Version (2) is not, and sounds awkward to me. It would
probably be possible to invent a scenario in which (2) meant something
different from (1), but it's not worth it--no native speaker would say it.

--
Les
(BrE)

[Jerry Avins]

Side issue: That should be /truly representative/ or /a true
representative/ depending on the meaning.

It's not easy do deal with this in isolation, so I'll give it company.

This model has two defects. It is too expensive, and it is also not
truly representative.

The negation makes the less clear than it might otherwise be.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

[Glenn Knickerbocker]

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 01:15:50 -0800 (PST), n o s p a m p l e a s e wrote:
>1) This would also not be true representative.

>2) This would not also be true representative.

The order of "also" and "not" is significant. "Also not" implicitly
negates the alternative, while "not also" implicitly affirms it:

1) That is not representative, and this would also not be representative.
2) That is representative, but this would not also be representative.

ŹR / Darla: Leftovers aren't the mark of a man. \ www.bestweb.net/~notr
Andrew Reid: Actually, they are, because that's how men's shirts button.

[THE COLONEL]

"n o s p a m p l e a s e" <nospam...@live.com> wrote in message
news:8298704.139.1320657350017.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqie15...

Way to much confluxion for me to consider.