0

Could “let alone” be used as in the following sentence?

  • This benefit should not be rejected, let alone hastily.

Here the “let alone” clause does not mirror “be rejected”; instead, it only has an adverb. Is it grammatical or not?

Does the second clause forcefully need to say: "be rejected hastily"?

I thank you for your help.

2
  • 1
    It's certainly understandable in speech. To be picky, just add "Let alone do it hastily." Mar 23 '21 at 23:29
  • 1
    Repeat rejected, but not be: This benefit should not be rejected, let alone rejected hastily. You can almost always delete meaningless parts like auxiliaries and prepositions, but repeating meaningful parts makes them more emphatic, and that's what's needed with the let alone construction. Mar 24 '21 at 1:14
2

Something in the first clause needs to mirror "hastily" for "let alone" to mean anything. You could say something like this:

This benefit should not be rejected at all, let alone hastily.

That is, not only should the benefit not be rejected hastily, it should not be rejected at all.

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.