Let's take the following two statements.
He who lives in a glass house shall not cast stones (1)
He who lives in a glass house shall have his toilet in the basement. (2)
Now, if we try to combine them like this:
Not only shall he who lives in a glass house not cast stones, but also have his toilet in the basement. (3)
Does this mean he shall have his toilet in the basement or that they shall not have his toilet in the basement? How far does the scope of the not in shall not cast stones go?
This is the actual example I was thinking about. It is possible to construct a more concise one:
Not only was it not green, but also red.
Was it red or wasn't it?
If it so happens that this is an inherently ambiguous and/or ungrammatical sentence/structure, then I am ready to accept that as an answer as well.
A
butB
just meansA
andB
, with an additional invited inference thatB
is somehow surprising to the speaker, or that the speaker expects the addressee to findB
surprising. Or both, which is the prototype.