If it is written that X is not as tall as Y, it indicates that X and Y have unequal heights. But does this necessarily imply that X is shorter than Y?


In the absence of further elaboration, yes: "I am not as X as you" implies that you have more X-quality than I do. If X is "tall", then I am shorter than you.

It is possible to follow up for a humorous (or insulting) reversal of the normal implication:

I am not as good as he is... I'm actually way better.

But if you don't do this explicit countering, the default reading is that "not as X as" is always "less X than".

  • That shows that it's an invited inference, or possibly a Gricean implicature. To the extent they're different. What's interesting is that this only works with the at least as ... as variety of equative; the exactly as ... as doesn't have this property, at least not in the same way: I'm not exactly as good as he is gives the impression that the speaker is changing the basis for comparison. – John Lawler Aug 7 '15 at 22:54

Logically, I do not think it should imply X is shorter than Y.

The definition of "as" according to Dictionary.com is

to the same degree, amount, or extent; similarly; equally

So, if I were to say "X is as tall as Y." I would be saying that X is equally as tall as Y.

If I were to negate that statement, then I would have "X is not as tall as Y." Which would be saying that X is not equally as tall as Y.

However, in general speech, I do agree with Hellion that it implies X is shorter than Y.


I see from the comments and downvotes that I have to spell it out completely for some readers.

First, if X is not as tall as Y, we can say that one of them is taller; that X is not equal to Y. Let us first assume for the sake of argument that Y is the taller, meaning that X < Y. My original comment read:

X < Y has the inescapable corollary that Y > X. As posed, the question needs no further answer.

I had assumed (it seems wrongly) that readers would appreciate that there is an equally logical mirror statement:

X > Y has the inescapable corollary that Y > X.

  • 5
    You seem to have confused ≠ with <. – SomethingDark Aug 7 '15 at 8:07
  • 1
    @SomethingDark not as is more closely correlated with < than btw. Leaving out the word as would change it to . – insidesin Aug 7 '15 at 10:34
  • @insidesin - For the most part that's true, but then you have examples like in Hellion's answer. – SomethingDark Aug 7 '15 at 11:02
  • @SomethingDark What do you mean? Then that would be > and still not :/ – insidesin Aug 7 '15 at 12:00
  • 1
    The issue here is the implicit double-meaning of "as X as Y"; height is viewed as an ascending property, so "as tall as" implicitly means "at least as tall as" - but it can also be interpreted as "exactly the same height as", leading to the sort of thing @Hellion pointed out - the humour comes from subverting the expectations set up by the double meaning. – anaximander Aug 7 '15 at 12:23

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.