Is this an abbreviated form?

“Harry Potter, do you know what unicorn blood is used for?”
“No,” said Harry, startled by the odd question. “We’ve only used the horn and tail hair in Potions.”
“That is because it is a monstrous thing, to slay a unicorn,” said Firenze. “Only one who has nothing to lose, and everything to
, would commit such a crime. The blood of a unicorn will keep
you alive, even if you are an inch from death, but at a terrible
price. You have slain something pure and defenseless to save yourself,
and you will have but a half-life, a cursed life, from the moment the
blood touches your lips.” (Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone)

Is the bold part the short form of ‘one who has everything to gain’?


I think this is an instance of a conjunct constituent rather than an ellipsis (conjunction reduction); that is, I would parse it as:

… one who has [Direct Object [NP nothing to lose] and [NP everything to gain] ] …

The presence of the comma bracket around and everything to gain do give some support to the notion that this is a reduced supplemental clause:

… one [who has nothing to lose], and [who (also) has everything to gain ]

But I’m inclined to read those commas as rhetorical rather than syntactical: they delineate the rising emphasis, as if to say:

… one who has [ NOT MERELY [nothing to lose] BUT ALSO [everything to gain ] ]… or

… one who has BOTH [ [nothing to lose] AND [everything to gain] ]

Source : Link , Question Author : Listenever , Answer Author : StoneyB on hiatus

Leave a Comment