 |
 | 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 / July 2009Mutiny at the Nor
This from some work I'm proofing: "However, in that paper Robson did not explain how to make the annotation data formal or structured, nor how to use genomic data in a clinical setting, but focused instead on encoding and decoding." Word Grammar checker wants the 'nor' to be 'or'. I think it should be 'nor'. The opinions of AUE folk would be gratefully received. DC,still on the road > This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > DC,still on the road I definitely prefer "or". "He did not explain this or that." But I think I've stopped correcting my students when they write "nor" in these situations. Or I will. Or might. -- Jerry Friedman >> This from some work I'm proofing: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >think I've stopped correcting my students when they write "nor" in >these situations. Or I will. Or might. And i would prefer "nor" Expanding it, "or did he explain how to" looks just plain wrong.  SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The opinions of AUE folk would be gratefully received. The opinion of this AUE folk is that you should give the Word Grammar Checker the Order of the Boot. SignatureDavid > > This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > -- > David Ah, that's a given, but sometimes it's interesting to work out which particular rule it's misapplying. DC >This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >The opinions of AUE folk would be gratefully received. My opinion is that "or" is grammatically correct: ...did not explain how to A or how to B. However, I feel that "nor" helps to remind the reader of the negativeness of what follows. Would a rewording be acceptable?: "However, in that paper Robson explained neither how to make the annotation data formal or structured, nor how to use genomic data in clinical setting, but focused instead on encoding and decoding." SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> This from some work I'm proofing: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ...did not explain how to A or how to B. I analysed it as having an elided verb: ... did not explain how to A, nor explain how to B. SignatureDavid > >> This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -- That's how I read it. DC >>>> This from some work I'm proofing: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > That's how I read it. > DC I'm with the nor-sayers. And the Word grammar checker should be Spitted out. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > > >> This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > That's how I read it. > DC Me too. The grammar checker is out to lunch. the Omrud filted: >>> This from some work I'm proofing: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >... did not explain how to A, nor explain how to B. AOL.... Does the dancing paperclip understand what you're trying to say if you add another instance of "explain" after the "nor"?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > the Omrud filted: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Does the dancing paperclip understand what you're trying to say if you add > another instance of "explain" after the "nor"?...r Yes, it's happy with that, and with 'nor did he explain', which I might just go with. DC >>> This from some work I'm proofing: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >... did not explain how to A, nor explain how to B. As did I. He explained neither how to do A, nor how to do B. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk On 21 July, 16:34, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:04:29 -0700 (PDT), Django Cat > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > annotation data formal or structured, nor how to use genomic data in > clinical setting, but focused instead on encoding and decoding." Thanks, Peter, I might go with that option. > Word Grammar checker wants the 'nor' to be 'or'. I think it should be > 'nor'. I have always supposed that "nor" can be used independently when negating the second part of two negative clauses. He didn't smoke, nor did he drink. We do not whimper, nor do we complain. Therefore, "However, in that paper Robson did not explain how to make the annotation data formal or structured, nor [did he explain] how to use genomic data in a clinical setting" would seem to be OK. >> Word Grammar checker wants the 'nor' to be 'or'. I think it should be >> 'nor'. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >annotation data formal or structured, nor [did he explain] how to use >genomic data in a clinical setting" would seem to be OK. Agreed. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England In our last episode, <73fd15cd-e46f-44e4-864b-333afe5d7b7e@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Django Cat broadcast on alt.usage.english: > Word Grammar checker wants the 'nor' to be 'or'. WWCD (What Would Coleridge do?) SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5803, 1993 181 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. > In our last episode, > <73fd15cd-e46f-44e4-864b-333afe5d7...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (What Would Coleridge do?) Good call, but we're fresh out of opium round here. DC > > In our last episode, > > <73fd15cd-e46f-44e4-864b-333afe5d7...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Good call, but we're fresh out of opium round here. > DC But how's the water supply? -- Mike. > > > In our last episode, > > > <73fd15cd-e46f-44e4-864b-333afe5d7...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > But how's the water supply? And where does the milk come from? -- Jerry Friedman In our last episode, <05d5d9b8-b107-4c07-9c39-0df4cc7688b5@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Jerry Friedman broadcast on alt.usage.english: >> > > In our last episode, >> > > <73fd15cd-e46f-44e4-864b-333afe5d7...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> But how's the water supply? Water, water, everywhere, and all the boards did shrink Water, water, everywhere, *Nor* any drop to drink. > And where does the milk come from? Day after day, day after day, We stuck, *nor* breath, *nor* motion, As idle as a painted ship upon a painted ocean. (from memory) Oh, yes, what? We were discussing the use of "nor" = "and not." Weren't we? *Nor* dim, *nor* red Like God's own head The glorious sun uprist Then all averred I had killed the bird, That brought the fog and mist. SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> September 5803, 1993 182 days since Rick Warren prayed over Bush's third term. Obama: No hope, no change, more of the same. Yes, he can, but no, he won't. > In our last episode, > <05d5d9b8-b107-4c07-9c39-0df4cc768...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ah. That bit of Coleridge. I was working my way round the Man from Porlock. DC >> In our last episode, >> <05d5d9b8-b107-4c07-9c39-0df4cc768...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > DC Ah. Jimmy Young! The Man from Porlock He was a man with a peaceful turn of mind He was kind and sociable and friendly Friendly as any man could be But you never saw a man outdraw The Man from Porlock SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> In our last episode, >>> <05d5d9b8-b107-4c07-9c39-0df4cc768...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > But you never saw a man outdraw > The Man from Porlock <sigh> Just what I needed, that's not only a sticker but brings with it all sorts of nostalgia which will distract me through a day of interviewing... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>> In our last episode, >>>> <05d5d9b8-b107-4c07-9c39-0df4cc768...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] >all sorts of nostalgia which will distract me through a day of >interviewing... Ah, Jimmy Young. "Unchained Melody". Back row of a cinema, sixteen and in fatuation. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > >> In our last episode, > >> <05d5d9b8-b107-4c07-9c39-0df4cc768...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > But you never saw a man outdraw > The Man from Porlock Did he drive the fastest milk-cart in the west? SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >> >> In our last episode, >> >> <05d5d9b8-b107-4c07-9c39-0df4cc768...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > >Did he drive the fastest milk-cart in the west? Only when going *down* Porlock Hill. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> In our last episode, >>>> <05d5d9b8-b107-4c07-9c39-0df4cc768...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Did he drive the fastest milk-cart in the west? Oh dear, oh dear. I've only just recovered from lunch with a chap who was humming two tunes and trying to work out which was the theme from "Dr Finlay's Casebook" and which from "Sutherland's Law". SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) LFS filted: >Oh dear, oh dear. I've only just recovered from lunch with a chap who >was humming two tunes and trying to work out which was the theme from >"Dr Finlay's Casebook" and which from "Sutherland's Law". Humming *two* tunes?...Tuvan, was he?...r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Oh dear, oh dear. I've only just recovered from lunch with a chap who > was humming two tunes and trying to work out which was the theme from > "Dr Finlay's Casebook" and which from "Sutherland's Law". Damn clever, that. It's a pity "Opportunity Knocks" isn't on these days. SignatureDavid > > Oh dear, oh dear. I've only just recovered from lunch with a chap who > > was humming two tunes and trying to work out which was the theme from > > "Dr Finlay's Casebook" and which from "Sutherland's Law". > > Damn clever, that. It's a pity "Opportunity Knocks" isn't on these days. I bet Colin Sell could do it. "One tune to the tune of another", I'd call it. P.S. I've tried, but I just can't listen without Humph. -- Mike. >>> Oh dear, oh dear. I've only just recovered from lunch with a chap who >>> was humming two tunes and trying to work out which was the theme from >>> "Dr Finlay's Casebook" and which from "Sutherland's Law". >> Damn clever, that. It's a pity "Opportunity Knocks" isn't on these days. He segued impressively from one tune to the other and back again. But I was till struggling with the wretched man from Laramie courtesy of Mr D so I couldn't tell him which tune belonged to which programme. > I bet Colin Sell could do it. "One tune to the tune of another", I'd > call it. > > P.S. I've tried, but I just can't listen without Humph. I thought S Fry was OK but they all sounded as if they were trying to imitate Humph. They are rather constrained by the script, though. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> I bet Colin Sell could do it. "One tune to the tune of another", I'd >> call it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I thought S Fry was OK but they all sounded as if they were trying to > imitate Humph. They are rather constrained by the script, though. And, to be fair, the early original programmes were pretty terrible (they have all been repeated on Radio 7). It probably took Humph 10 years to become Humph. The current applicants only got two progs each. SignatureDavid >> Oh dear, oh dear. I've only just recovered from lunch with a chap who >> was humming two tunes and trying to work out which was the theme from >> "Dr Finlay's Casebook" and which from "Sutherland's Law". > > Damn clever, that. It's a pity "Opportunity Knocks" isn't on these > days. Indeed. I remember a bloke on TV many years ago who could hum one tune and whistle a different one at the same time. I'd like to hear that again. One of them was "Swanee River" and the other, as General Grant used to say, wasn't. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > In our last episode, > <05d5d9b8-b107-4c07-9c39-0df4cc768...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Oh, yes, what? We were discussing the use of "nor" = "and not." > Weren't we? I wasn't. I was on a tangent in Paradise (temporarily). > *Nor* dim, *nor* red > Like God's own head > The glorious sun uprist > Then all averred > I had killed the bird, > That brought the fog and mist. If you're suggesting that the ancient mariner is a model of standard English, objections have uprist in my mind. As Paul Wolff and John O'Flaherty pointed out, the quoted example doesn't work if you change "nor" to "and not" (or that's pretty much what they said). It does work if you accept it as elliptical for a form with an "and... not" in it, as Eric Walker pointed out, or just on the basis of idiom. I don't like the "nor" here, partly because of my prejudice against adding an "n" to a sentence that works without it (considering what happens when you add an "n" to "ever" or "one"). But maybe it's a matter of taste. -- Jerry Friedman > In our last episode, > <73fd15cd-e46f-44e4-864b-333afe5d7...@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (What Would Coleridge do?) PS, thanks to all for your help. DC >In our last episode, ><73fd15cd-e46f-44e4-864b-333afe5d7b7e@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >(What Would Coleridge do?) I may not be the only one who has to stop and think who's who out of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Samuel Coleridge Taylor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Taylor_Coleridge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Coleridge-Taylor SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) BrE filted: >I may not be the only one who has to stop and think who's who out of >Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Samuel Coleridge Taylor. >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Taylor_Coleridge >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Coleridge-Taylor I have the same problem with Dan Quayle and Danny Partridge....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> In our last episode, >> <73fd15cd-e46f-44e4-864b-333afe5d7b7e@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Taylor_Coleridge > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Coleridge-Taylor No, you're not. While we're speaking of the poets, among my planned holiday reading is a book entitled "The Romantic Economist" by Richard Bronk. Here is what Deirdre (who was once Donald) McCloskey has to say on the back cover: 'The Romantic Economist is a miracle, combining sophisticated economics with, of all things, sophisticated literary criticism - in aid of the economics. An economics that recognized our Wordsworthian selves, Richard Bronk argues in a lucid and learned style, would do much better at the analysis of getting and spending. The world is too much with us if we do not have a humanistic science of economics. Bronk is among the handful of modern students of the economy who sees this clear. Literary folk can learn from Bronk about the dismal science. But it is the tribe of the Econ who need him most. Fortunately they will find the needful assignment here a delight.' SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) Django Cat wrote... > This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The opinions of AUE folk would be gratefully received. I'm sorry to say I tend to agree with Word. "He did not explain A or B" would be correct. Because A is so complex, though, a comma seems necessary to avoid the infelicity of 'formal or structured or how.' The force of the negative is thereby weakened to such an extent that 'nor' pushes itself forward in defiance of the rule in order to restore its vigour. I would resolve this by inserting 'did he explain' between 'nor' and 'how,' if only to preclude debates like this. SignatureNoel >Django Cat wrote... >> This from some work I'm proofing: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >vigour. I would resolve this by inserting 'did he explain' between >'nor' and 'how,' if only to preclude debates like this. Very wise. He did not (1) explain how to make the annotation data formal nor (2) how to use the genomic data in a clinical setting... That structure creates "He did not how to use...", which trips the whole sentence up. The second limb desperately needs a verb to wave at the reader, and "nor did he...", with an elegant inversion, is a good way in. SignaturePaul > >Django Cat wrote... > >> This from some work I'm proofing: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > reader, and "nor did he...", with an elegant inversion, is a good way > in. Yup, I think that's looking to be the way the smart money goes... DC >This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >DC,still on the road I would have to use "or", because the "not" is used up already: ...did not explain [] but focused instead on... The bit in the brackets is how to make... or how to use The "nor" requires a preceding negation, but the preceding "not" in this sentence is at a higher level of structure and can't justify the "nor". SignatureJohn John O'Flaherty set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time continuum: >>"However, in that paper Robson did not explain how to make the >>annotation data formal or structured, nor how to use genomic data in a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this sentence is at a higher level of structure and can't justify the > "nor". The structure is "not A, nor B, but C". A B and C are all at the same "level". I vote for nor. Signatureξ:) Proud to be curly Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply > John O'Flaherty set the following eddies spiralling through the > space-time continuum: >>> "However, in that paper Robson did not explain how to make the >>> annotation data formal or structured, nor how to use genomic data [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The structure is "not A, nor B, but C". A B and C are all at the > same "level". I vote for nor. Me too. SignatureSkitt (AmE) not that it matters much >John O'Flaherty set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time >continuum: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >The structure is "not A, nor B, but C". A B and C are all at the >same "level". I vote for nor. The "not" negates the word "explain", not one or both of the two subsequent "how to"s. If you use a "nor" before the second "how to", for parallelism you would have to imagine another inserted "explain" : ... did not explain how to A, nor explain how to B, but instead focused... So as given, the structure isn't "not A, nor B, but C". Rather, it is not X ( A or B ) but instead Y where X = explain, A = how to 1, B = how to 2, Y = focused. SignatureJohn > This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > DC,still on the road I'm with you, "nor." Why would a canned grammar checker know better? --Jeff SignatureThe comfort of the wealthy has always depended upon an abundant supply of the poor. --Voltaire > > This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I'm with you, "nor." Why would a canned grammar checker know better? Absolutely. OK, decision, it stays as is. DC > This from some work I'm proofing: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Word Grammar checker wants the 'nor' to be 'or'. I think it should be > 'nor'. "Nor" is, in this sort of usage, a conjunction with the general sense "and neither", and functions to introduce an independent clause totally disjoined from its immediate predecessor (and typically with subject and verb inverted--as in "did he"). A proper use, in full expansion, would be: Robson did not explain how to make the annotation data formal or structured, nor did he explain how to use genomic data in a clinical setting. An elliptical form of that would be: Robson did not explain how to make the annotation data formal or structured, nor [did he explain] how to use genomic data in a clinical setting. So it is correct as written. SignatureCordially, Eric Walker, Owlcroft House http://owlcroft.com/english/ |
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.