Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

English is not my first language so maybe that is why, but the expression "all but [something]" seems really strange to me. The way I thought it worked was that if something is, for example, all but destroyed - that would mean that it is not destroyed since it is everything BUT that. However, it seems that the correct meaning is that if something is all but destroyed then it really is destroyed because...well, that's what I can't grasp.

First of all, what I wrote above is correct, right? That if something is all but destroyed it is in fact destroyed. Secondly, if that is correct, why in the world is it so? I can not grasp the grammatical or linguistical reasoning behind the expression.

I see what you are saying. You are misinterpreting it as saying the opposite of [something]. It's actually meant to show that it is very close to [something].

Example:
"All but destroyed" means that the subject of the sentence was heavily beaten/abused/maltreated to the point of destruction, but it had not actually been damaged enough to fill the definition of "destroyed".

Aah, thanks. Yeah, it seems that was the thing I misunderstood =) Thanks for clearing it up, it's been annoying me for quite some time now!

To be honest, i understand what it means, but i don't understand why its said

(Would maybe help if i could spell....)

You had to be there.

It is also often used when something is not destroyed, but effectively damaged in such a way that it might just as well be destroyed.

A tank with a track blown off and all weapons destroyed is not actually destroyed, but effectively out of the game, since it can neither shoot nor move, so it might as well count as destroyed, and the phrase could be applied very well.