grammar - Can the preposition "about" be followed by an adverb? Is what follows a noun clause?

I recently asked a question on another site, and one of my sentences left me in doubt. Here is the sentence.

To be clear, the concept is not about condoning immoral actions, but rather, when breaking the rules is the right thing to do, or the wisest course of action.

I have a couple questions. First, you will notice that "but rather" is a standalone phrase enclosed by commas. Is there a name for this construction? I feel like it helps a sentence build suspense, and serves to emphasize what follows.

Second, the clause "when breaking the rules is the right thing to do" gave me some pause. I would like to think that it's permissible, owing to conjunctive reduction. The preposition "about" is implied, e.g. "but rather, [about] when breaking the rules is the right thing to do".

However, I am not sure whether the preposition "about" can take an adverb such as "when". It seems to me that my clause beginning with "when" is acting like a noun clause. I think this is fine, but I'm not sure. Would you say that the grammar is correct, and the style acceptable?

Also, would you consider the clause beginning with "when" to be a noun clause? (This would help me make sense of the construction.)

Answer

The phrase but rather is an introduction to what the Chicago Manual of Style calls an antithetical element. You've said the concept doesn't concern condoning, and the but rather prepares the reader to find out what contrasting subject does concern the concept.

Unfortunately, you have the set the following traps for the unwary reader:

• There are three possible targets of the antithesis and each sets up a different expectation:

  actions:

  
  
  

  
  

  The concept is not about condoning immoral actions, but rather condoning immoral thoughts.

  
  

  
  
  
  

  immoral:

  
  
  

  
  

  The concept is not about condoning immoral actions, but rather condoning moral actions.

  
  

  
  
  

  about:

  
  
  

  
  
  

  The concept is not about condoning immoral actions, but rather about another issue entirely.

  
  




• You mean the third from the above, but not only have you elided the preposition about, you've proposed two items (breaking the rules and the wisest course of action) to stand for the opposite of the single not condoning.




• You've abandoned parallel construction, attempting to balance a gerund phrase (condoning immoral actions) with a clause (when breaking the rules is right) and a noun phrase (course of action).




• You mean when adverbially (basically, at what times is breaking the rules right), but this clashes with the use of when as a subordinate conjunction along the lines of

  
  
  

  
  

  when banning marriage is the law, only outlaws will have inlaws.

  
  




• The comma after to do is intended to be a list separator, but it may instead be mistaken for the comma after an introductory clause or the comma preceding another clause, as in

  
  
  
  

  
  

  when breaking the rules is the right thing to do, or when the wisest course of action is taken.

  
  

  
  
  

  The comma cannot be left out, however, lest your reader expect the second part of a compound complement, perhaps along the lines of

  
  
  

  
  

  the right thing to do or the least wrong thing.

  
  

At this point, your reader may begin to suspect that your introductory to be clear was meant ironically. It might be best to drop back and rephrase:

The concept does not allow us to condone immoral actions, but rather, forces us to determine when breaking the rules is the right thing to do and to embark on the wisest course of action once we've decided to break them.