 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004no A or B
Hi Which is better? "No drinking and eating" "No drinking or eating" "No drinking nor eating" > Hi > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "No drinking or eating" > "No drinking nor eating" I prefer occasional drinking and eating to any of those alternatives. But if you mean that (in some limited context, I hope) neither drinking nor eating are permitted, the second choice expresses it best. -- rzed >> Which is better? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > drinking nor eating are permitted, the second choice expresses it > best. I have always preferred the third choice, but there are those who have gotten upset with me for that. They had no call to be that, as both /or/ and /nor/ are acceptable in your statement, the /or/ being more popular, but not wrong. I quote AHD4: USAGE NOTE: When using neither in a balanced construction that negates two parts of a sentence, nor (not or) must be used in the second clause: She is neither able nor (not or) willing to go. Similarly, when negating the second of two negative independent clauses, nor (not or) must be used: He cannot find anyone now, nor does he expect to find anyone in the future; Jane will never compromise with Bill, nor will Bill compromise with Jane. Note that in these constructions, nor causes an inversion of the auxiliary verb and the subject (does he . will Bill .). However, when a verb is negated by not or never, and is followed by a verb phrase that is also to be negated (but not an entire clause), either or or nor can be used: He will not permit the change, or (or nor) even consider it. In noun phrases of the type no this or that, or is actually more common than nor: He has no experience or interest (less frequently nor interest) in chemistry. Or is also more common than nor when such a noun phrase, adjective phrase, or adverb phrase is introduced by not: He is not a philosopher or a statesman. They were not rich or happy. See Usage Notes at neither, or1.  SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>> Which is better? >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > /or/ and /nor/ are acceptable in your statement, the /or/ being more > popular, but not wrong. I screwed that up -- the /nor/ is not wrong. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ << [TOY] Which is better? "No drinking and eating" "No drinking or eating" "No drinking nor eating" [end quote] >> << [Skitt] I have always preferred the third choice, but there are those who have gotten upset with me for that. They had no call to be that, as both /or/ and /nor/ are acceptable in your statement, the /or/ being more popular, but not wrong. I quote AHD4: USAGE NOTE: When using neither in a balanced construction that negates two parts of a sentence, nor (not or) must be used in the second clause: She is neither able nor (not or) willing to go. Similarly, when negating the second of two negative independent clauses, nor (not or) must be used: He cannot find anyone now, nor does he expect to find anyone in the future; Jane will never compromise with Bill, nor will Bill compromise with Jane. Note that in these constructions, nor causes an inversion of the auxiliary verb and the subject (does he . will Bill .). However, when a verb is negated by not or never, and is followed by a verb phrase that is also to be negated (but not an entire clause), either or or nor can be used: He will not permit the change, or (or nor) even consider it. In noun phrases of the type no this or that, or is actually more common than nor: He has no experience or interest (less frequently nor interest) in chemistry. Or is also more common than nor when such a noun phrase, adjective phrase, or adverb phrase is introduced by not: He is not a philosopher or a statesman. They were not rich or happy. See Usage Notes at neither, or1. [end quote] >> << [Skitt] I screwed that up -- the /nor/ is not wrong. [end quote] >> Unscrewing a little more: "... /or/ being more popular, but /nor/ is not wrong. Should we unscrew even more -- can we mix "being" and "is" like this? -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > << [TOY] > Which is better? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Should we unscrew even more -- > can we mix "being" and "is" like this? Don't consider them as being mixed, and all will be OK. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ rzed filted: >> Hi >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >But if you mean that (in some limited context, I hope) neither drinking nor >eating are permitted, the second choice expresses it best. The second choice is ambiguous because there is no agreement among English speakers whether "or" is inclusive or exclusive...from an earlier discussion here: If a child is told "you may have a cookie or a candy bar", it generally excludes the possibility of having one of each...but if your boss sends a memo saying "if you show up for work drunk or naked, I'll fire you", it is generally best not to test the interpretation by showing up both drunk *and* naked.... The clearest solution to the original problem is to establish two separate prohibitions: "No drinking. No eating." ....r > rzed filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >But if you mean that (in some limited context, I hope) neither drinking nor > >eating are permitted, the second choice expresses it best. On reviewing that statement, I suppose it should read "neither drinking nor eating is permitted". > The second choice is ambiguous because there is no agreement among English > speakers whether "or" is inclusive or exclusive...from an earlier discussion [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The clearest solution to the original problem is to establish two separate > prohibitions: "No drinking. No eating." Although I applaud the creative spirit of one who, by *both* eating and drinking at the same time, would avoid the "no drinking or eating" prohibition, I find it difficult to imagine how both are to be done simultaneously. In most cases, people who are doing both are interleaving the two actions; any time they are doing either they are violating one prohibition or the other. -- rzed >Hi > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"No drinking or eating" >"No drinking nor eating" "No food or drink allowed." It helps if there is a picture representing what's not permitted. <sigh>. > >Hi > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > "No food or drink allowed." Which is different, as it bars patrons who are merely carrying food or drink (as, say, a bottle of water), but not consuming it. Which is sometimes reasonable. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Whatever it is that the government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |does, sensible Americans would prefer Palo Alto, CA 94304 |that the government do it to somebody |else. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | P.J. O'Rourke (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ 1 > "No drinking and eating" The action is to "drink and eat": You can eat, or you can drink, but you may not do both at the same time. 2 > "No drinking or eating" The action is to "drink or eat": You may not drink. You may not eat. (Perhaps you are permitted to do both simultaneously? But that would be a bit difficult). 3 > "No drinking nor eating" As 2 above. 4 "Eating and drinking (are) forbidden" These two actions are forbidden. 5 "It is forbidden to eat, drink or any subsequent combination thereof." No doubt about the intended meaning, but how far do you want to go? It doesn't really matter which you write, everyone will still understand. If I were to write a notice to this effect I would choose 2 > "No eating or drinking". If I wanted to be more stern I would choose 4 "Eating and drinking forbidden". |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.