And nor

[Stan Brown]

I've been watching the movie /Never Let Me Go/, and it contains the
lines "I will not be coerced. And neither will Hailsham."

That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.

In AmE we could say,

(1) "I will not be coerced. Nor will Hailsham." (never "and")
(2) "I will not be coerced. [And] neither will Hailsham." (with or
without "and", though the meaning is the same either way)

But IIRC, in BrE you could insert "and" in (1).

Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
nor" in BrE?

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Don Phillipson]

"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a1082023...@news.individual.net...

> Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
> nor" in BrE?

In general, English has no constructive rules of grammar
(no rules determining what you must say or how it must be said.)
Instead, the repertoire of actual languages includes thousands
of examples of the vernacular, which grammarians and stylists
group as "preferred" or "not preferred."

This bottom-up derivation of preferences, in obvious contrast to
top-down imposition of rules, appears nowadays to be the norm
in "machine intelligence," viz. use of computers to recommend
medical or safety procedures, compete as Watson on Jeopardy,
etc. The IBM team for Watson started by attempting to define
rules, gave up this task as impossible, and became successful only
when they reprogrammed their computer network to seek out
immanent similarities among its millions of examples.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Ian Noble]

My understanding (based on an article on TV in the UK here a few days
ago) is that Google Translate takes the same approach - it has no
programmed rules of grammar, but relies purely on statistical
inferences.

Whilst (as any simple test of it will show) it's got a long way to go
before it's anything close to perfect, it also seems to me to be every
bit as good as older translators we used to see that were based on
such models; I'm frankly impressed by how good it manages to be (and
the statistical approach means (a) it's not limited to only those
languages that have been described to it, and (b) it is likely to get
better over time, too). A real-life attempt at the old Star Trek
"universal translator".

Cheers - Ian

[Mike L]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:59:31 +0100, Ian Noble
<ipn...@killspam.o2.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:51 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
><e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.2a1082023...@news.individual.net...
>>
>>> Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
>>> nor" in BrE?
>>
>>In general, English has no constructive rules of grammar
>>(no rules determining what you must say or how it must be said.)
>>Instead, the repertoire of actual languages includes thousands
>>of examples of the vernacular, which grammarians and stylists
>>group as "preferred" or "not preferred."
>>

Like so many of those raised in a.u.e., this is more a question of
style than of grammar. And for my money, "and nor" is grammatically
only a little odd, but not good enough style for formal use: I dislike
it because it feels fuzzy in a way in which "and neither" doesn't. Ask
me what I mean by that, and I don't really know just now: it may come
to me as I try to sleep.
[...]
--
Mike.

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:51 -0400, Don Phillipson wrote:
>
> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2a1082023...@news.individual.net...
>
> > Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
> > nor" in BrE?
>
> In general, English has no constructive rules of grammar
> (no rules determining what you must say or how it must be said.)

Yes, I agree. But wouldn't you agree that it's legitimate to use
"rules" as a shorthand for "the way educated speakers use the
language when they're speaking carefully and especially when they're
writing"? At least, that's how I was using "rules" in my query.

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:51 -0400, Don Phillipson wrote:
>

> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2a1082023...@news.individual.net...
>
> > Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
> > nor" in BrE?
>
> In general, English has no constructive rules of grammar
> (no rules determining what you must say or how it must be said.)

Yes, I agree. But wouldn't you agree that it's legitimate to use

"rules" as a shorthand for "the way educated native speakers use the

language when they're speaking carefully and especially when they're
writing"? At least, that's how I was using "rules" in my query.

[Don Phillipson]

"Ian Noble" <ipn...@killspam.o2.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2dldq7dc70o8gi699...@4ax.com...

>>This bottom-up derivation of preferences, in obvious contrast to
>>top-down imposition of rules, appears nowadays to be the norm
>>in "machine intelligence," viz. use of computers to recommend
>>medical or safety procedures, compete as Watson on Jeopardy,
>>etc. The IBM team for Watson started by attempting to define
>>rules, gave up this task as impossible, and became successful only
>>when they reprogrammed their computer network to seek out
>>immanent similarities among its millions of examples.
>
> My understanding (based on an article on TV in the UK here a few days
> ago) is that Google Translate takes the same approach - it has no
> programmed rules of grammar, but relies purely on statistical
> inferences.

A recent Nova programme (PBS-TV) on Watson said the
late programming change that allowed the computer to win the Jeopardy
quiz competition was adding to the database the last question
answered in the current contest, annotated fror cross-comparison
with Watson's result (flagged as right or wrong.) The test
case (at least in the narrative of the TV show) was a group of
questions for which the correct answers must be months of the
year, although the question nowhere included the word month.
The machine's first answers were wildly wrong (not months):
but when two or three right answers were available as well
as the qestion, the machine worked out for itself that the correct
answer must be the name of a month.

[Dr Nick]

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:

> I've been watching the movie /Never Let Me Go/, and it contains the
> lines "I will not be coerced. And neither will Hailsham."
>
> That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
> construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.
>
> In AmE we could say,
>
> (1) "I will not be coerced. Nor will Hailsham." (never "and")
> (2) "I will not be coerced. [And] neither will Hailsham." (with or
> without "and", though the meaning is the same either way)
>
> But IIRC, in BrE you could insert "and" in (1).
>
> Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
> nor" in BrE?

I'm (native BrE) not entirely comfortable with "and nor", but I think it
- like "and neither" - is a rhetorical device for emphasis.

Something along the lines of "and don't try to get round it in that
way".

"You can't have ice cream. And nor can you have an ice lolly".
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:26:06 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:51 -0400, Don Phillipson wrote:
> >
> > "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.2a1082023...@news.individual.net...
> >
> > > Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
> > > nor" in BrE?
> >
> > In general, English has no constructive rules of grammar
> > (no rules determining what you must say or how it must be said.)
>
> Yes, I agree. But wouldn't you agree that it's legitimate to use
> "rules" as a shorthand for "the way educated speakers use the
> language when they're speaking carefully and especially when they're
> writing"? At least, that's how I was using "rules" in my query.

Sorry for the duplication. I thought I caught this one before it
went out, but I guess I didn't.

[Stan Brown]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 07:43:55 +0100, Dr Nick wrote:

>
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
> > Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
> > nor" in BrE?
>
> I'm (native BrE) not entirely comfortable with "and nor", but I think it
> - like "and neither" - is a rhetorical device for emphasis.
>
> Something along the lines of "and don't try to get round it in that
> way".
>
> "You can't have ice cream. And nor can you have an ice lolly".

Thanks, Nick. Is there any basis for the decision between "nor" and
"neither" in that sentence, or are they interchangeable?

[Andrew B]

On 06/05/2012 18:42, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> I've been watching the movie /Never Let Me Go/, and it contains the
> lines "I will not be coerced. And neither will Hailsham."
>
> That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
> construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.
>
> In AmE we could say,
>
> (1) "I will not be coerced. Nor will Hailsham." (never "and")
> (2) "I will not be coerced. [And] neither will Hailsham." (with or
> without "and", though the meaning is the same either way)
>
> But IIRC, in BrE you could insert "and" in (1).
>
> Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
> nor" in BrE?

Isn't it just the opposite of "so"/"and so" (I'm assuming that's OK in AmE)?

"I will be coerced. (And) so will Hailsham"
"I will not be coerced. (And) nor will Hailsham"

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Me too, as long as there is some human supervision. As an example of
the disasters that can arise when Google Translate is applied by
idiots, see

http://www.ara.cat/politica/Joseph-Mary-Pilgrim-personalitat-Govern_0_692330906.html

It's

in Catalan, but it's easy enough to get the main points. Otherwise try
http://fuckedtranslation.blogspot.com.es/

Victor Mair gives many examples of what passes for English in China at
Language Log. Next week I'm going to be in China and I've used Google
Translate to put the main headings of my lecture in Chinese. My initial
plan was to ask a Chinese colleague to check them, but then I thought
what the heck, why not give them an opportunity to see how far Google
Translate can be trusted?

> (and
> the statistical approach means (a) it's not limited to only those
> languages that have been described to it, and (b) it is likely to get
> better over time, too). A real-life attempt at the old Star Trek
> "universal translator".
>
> Cheers - Ian

--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-05-06 19:42:19 +0200, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> said:

>
> I've been watching the movie /Never Let Me Go/, and it contains the
> lines "I will not be coerced. And neither will Hailsham."
>
> That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
> construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.
>
> In AmE we could say,
>
> (1) "I will not be coerced. Nor will Hailsham." (never "and")
> (2) "I will not be coerced. [And] neither will Hailsham." (with or
> without "and", though the meaning is the same either way)
>
> But IIRC, in BrE you could insert "and" in (1).
>
> Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
> nor" in BrE?

I would say that they mean the same and are interchangeable in many
contexts where not preceded by "neither". However, "and nor" is
colloquial, and I doubt whether you'd find it much in written work.

Years ago I read an article in Scientific American about logical gates
and I had a lot of difficulty understanding what a nor gate was until I
realized that it's a badly chosen name: it seems to mean "not or"
rather than "nor" -- which corresponds better to a nand gate.


--
athel

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:

> On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:51 -0400, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>
>> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.2a1082023...@news.individual.net...
>>
>> > Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
>> > nor" in BrE?
>>
>> In general, English has no constructive rules of grammar
>> (no rules determining what you must say or how it must be said.)
>
> Yes, I agree. But wouldn't you agree that it's legitimate to use
> "rules" as a shorthand for "the way educated speakers use the
> language when they're speaking carefully and especially when they're
> writing"? At least, that's how I was using "rules" in my query.

No; that changes too fast to constitute "rules".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Andrew B]

?
"A nor B" is true if (and only if) neither A nor B is true.

"A nand B" is true if (and only if) either A or B is false - not sure
how that corresponds to "nor".

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:42:19 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:

> That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
> construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.

That construction is a solecism, pure and simple. "Nor" is a a
conjunction; to write "And nor" is about as reasonable as to write "and
but".


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Mike L]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:02:34 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:51 -0400, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>
>>> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.2a1082023...@news.individual.net...
>>>
>>> > Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
>>> > nor" in BrE?
>>>
>>> In general, English has no constructive rules of grammar
>>> (no rules determining what you must say or how it must be said.)
>>
>> Yes, I agree. But wouldn't you agree that it's legitimate to use
>> "rules" as a shorthand for "the way educated speakers use the
>> language when they're speaking carefully and especially when they're
>> writing"? At least, that's how I was using "rules" in my query.
>
>No; that changes too fast to constitute "rules".

Are you sure? Eighteenth- or even seventeenth-century English isn't
_radically_ different from ours; and we can go further back with
little difficulty. Rules derived by consensus are none the less rules;
and, for all our language's great flexibility, we wouldn't understand
one another if we strayed too far from them.

(Topically, I suppose it's a bit like the old failed European exchange
rate mechanism: "a snake in a tunnel", with a lot of wiggle room
within limits.)

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

How do you feel about "Nor, however,.." or "But nor..."? Conjunctions
all.

--
Mike.

[Stan Brown]

By that logic, "and neither" is equally a solecism. Do you *really*
refuse to admit "I will not be coerced, and neither will Hailsham"?

I think you're in a cleft stick there. AFAIK, pretty much everyone
would accept that sentence. But if you accept it, you have to
explain why "and neither" is okay and "and nor" is not.

[Robert Bannister]

On 7/05/12 2:43 PM, Dr Nick wrote:
> Stan Brown<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>
>> I've been watching the movie /Never Let Me Go/, and it contains the
>> lines "I will not be coerced. And neither will Hailsham."
>>
>> That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
>> construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.
>>
>> In AmE we could say,
>>
>> (1) "I will not be coerced. Nor will Hailsham." (never "and")
>> (2) "I will not be coerced. [And] neither will Hailsham." (with or
>> without "and", though the meaning is the same either way)
>>
>> But IIRC, in BrE you could insert "and" in (1).
>>
>> Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
>> nor" in BrE?
>
> I'm (native BrE) not entirely comfortable with "and nor", but I think it
> - like "and neither" - is a rhetorical device for emphasis.
>
> Something along the lines of "and don't try to get round it in that
> way".
>
> "You can't have ice cream. And nor can you have an ice lolly".

I remember as a child being taught by somebody - parents or teacher -
the "me neither" was wrong and it should be "nor me", but as I have
always said the latter, I've always found a number of "neithers" to be
substandard. I find nothing odd about "and nor".

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

On 7/05/12 9:50 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2012-05-06 19:42:19 +0200, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> said:
>
>>
>> I've been watching the movie /Never Let Me Go/, and it contains the
>> lines "I will not be coerced. And neither will Hailsham."
>>
>> That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
>> construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.
>>
>> In AmE we could say,
>>
>> (1) "I will not be coerced. Nor will Hailsham." (never "and")
>> (2) "I will not be coerced. [And] neither will Hailsham." (with or
>> without "and", though the meaning is the same either way)
>>
>> But IIRC, in BrE you could insert "and" in (1).
>>
>> Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
>> nor" in BrE?
>
> I would say that they mean the same and are interchangeable in many
> contexts where not preceded by "neither". However, "and nor" is
> colloquial, and I doubt whether you'd find it much in written work.

To my ear, it is entirely the other way round. The "and neither" grates
for me.

>
> Years ago I read an article in Scientific American about logical gates
> and I had a lot of difficulty understanding what a nor gate was until I
> realized that it's a badly chosen name: it seems to mean "not or" rather
> than "nor" -- which corresponds better to a nand gate.
>
>


--

Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

Oxford Dictionary online says "conjunction and adverb".

Seeing that the origin of "nor" is
"C13: contraction of Old English nōther, from nāhwæther - neither" the
whole question is a bit meaningless.

--
Robert Bannister

[R H Draney]

Robert Bannister filted:

>
>I remember as a child being taught by somebody - parents or teacher -
>the "me neither" was wrong and it should be "nor me", but as I have
>always said the latter, I've always found a number of "neithers" to be
>substandard. I find nothing odd about "and nor".

Sometimes "nor me" should be "nor I"....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:20:27 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:42:19 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> > That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
>> > construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.
>>
>> That construction is a solecism, pure and simple. "Nor" is a a
>> conjunction; to write "And nor" is about as reasonable as to write "and
>> but".
>
>By that logic, "and neither" is equally a solecism. Do you *really*
>refuse to admit "I will not be coerced, and neither will Hailsham"?
>
>I think you're in a cleft stick there. AFAIK, pretty much everyone
>would accept that sentence. But if you accept it, you have to
>explain why "and neither" is okay and "and nor" is not.

I accept "and neither" and I don't like "and nor"; and here
is my explanation.

Whenever I meet "nor" and happen to focus on it, the two
words "and not" pop into my head as one ... transliteration?
Anyway, "and not" is evoked in the processing. This startles
me and seems wrong. If I have ever seen it in something
well-written, I suppose I passed it off as an editing error.


--
Rich Ulrich

[Dr Nick]

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:

> On Mon, 07 May 2012 07:43:55 +0100, Dr Nick wrote:
>>
>> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>>
>> > Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
>> > nor" in BrE?
>>
>> I'm (native BrE) not entirely comfortable with "and nor", but I think it
>> - like "and neither" - is a rhetorical device for emphasis.
>>
>> Something along the lines of "and don't try to get round it in that
>> way".
>>
>> "You can't have ice cream. And nor can you have an ice lolly".
>
> Thanks, Nick. Is there any basis for the decision between "nor" and
> "neither" in that sentence, or are they interchangeable?

I'm sure there is, but it's buried deep in my language sense and I
can't reverse engineer it. I /think/ - and I do emphasise that this is
all introspection of a sample of one - that I'd use "nor" for an
activity and "neither" for a person.

"You can't have an ice cream. And nor can you have an ice lolly".
"You can't have an ice cream. And neither can your sister".

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:30:05 +0100, Mike L wrote:

> On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

[...]

>>That construction is a solecism, pure and simple. "Nor" is a a
>>conjunction; to write "And nor" is about as reasonable as to write "and
>>but".
>
> How do you feel about "Nor, however,.." or "But nor..."? Conjunctions
> all.

Not all: "however" is often an adverb. "But nor" is just silly.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 20:20:27 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:

> On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 06 May 2012 13:42:19 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> > That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
>> > construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.
>>
>> That construction is a solecism, pure and simple. "Nor" is a a
>> conjunction; to write "And nor" is about as reasonable as to write "and
>> but".
>
> By that logic, "and neither" is equally a solecism. Do you *really*
> refuse to admit "I will not be coerced, and neither will Hailsham"?
>
> I think you're in a cleft stick there. AFAIK, pretty much everyone
> would accept that sentence. But if you accept it, you have to explain
> why "and neither" is okay and "and nor" is not.

Arguments that cast a word that can be any one of several parts of speech
as one and one only are self-defeating. I imagine that in the example
cited it is an adverb; compare "Just as you would not, so neither would
they." (Sample of "neither" as adverb from the AHD5.)


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Stan Brown]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:15:57 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 May 2012 20:20:27 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote:

> >> "Nor" is a a
> >> conjunction; to write "And nor" is about as reasonable as to write "and
> >> but".
> >
>

> Arguments that cast a word that can be any one of several parts of speech
> as one and one only are self-defeating. I imagine that in the example
> cited it is an adverb; compare "Just as you would not, so neither would
> they." (Sample of "neither" as adverb from the AHD5.)

Eric Walker, meet Eric Walker.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-05-08 03:40:55 +0000, Robert Bannister said:

> On 7/05/12 9:50 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2012-05-06 19:42:19 +0200, Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> said:
>>
>>>
>>> I've been watching the movie /Never Let Me Go/, and it contains the
>>> lines "I will not be coerced. And neither will Hailsham."
>>>
>>> That reminds me of something I've noticed in the past: BrE has the
>>> construction "and nor", which does not occur in AmE.
>>>
>>> In AmE we could say,
>>>
>>> (1) "I will not be coerced. Nor will Hailsham." (never "and")
>>> (2) "I will not be coerced. [And] neither will Hailsham." (with or
>>> without "and", though the meaning is the same either way)
>>>
>>> But IIRC, in BrE you could insert "and" in (1).
>>>
>>> Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
>>> nor" in BrE?
>>
>> I would say that they mean the same and are interchangeable in many
>> contexts where not preceded by "neither". However, "and nor" is
>> colloquial, and I doubt whether you'd find it much in written work.
>
> To my ear, it is entirely the other way round. The "and neither" grates for me.

For me too, but I didn't write "and neither". By "not preceded by
neither" I meant that you can't replace "nor" by "and nor" in, say,
"neither Hailsham nor I will be coerced".

>
>>
>> Years ago I read an article in Scientific American about logical gates
>> and I had a lot of difficulty understanding what a nor gate was until I
>> realized that it's a badly chosen name: it seems to mean "not or" rather
>> than "nor" -- which corresponds better to a nand gate.


--

athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Probably it corresponds only in my fevered imagination of how
electronic gates work.

--
athel

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2012-05-07 21:30:23 +0000, Mike L said:

> [ …]

> (Topically, I suppose it's a bit like the old failed European exchange
> rate mechanism: "a snake in a tunnel", with a lot of wiggle room
> within limits.)

I'm not sure that the snake itself failed. Wasn't it more a case of
politicians failing to follow the rules?

In a different example, if understand correctly the present problems of
Greece are not caused by failure of the criteria for entering the euro
system, but failure of the Greek governments to present truthful
accounts, and failure of other governments to admit that the Greek
accounts were fantasy.


--
athel

[Lanarcam]

a NOR gate is a OR gate followed by an inverter (NOT). Idem for NAND.

"Some gate symbols have a circle on their output which means that
their function includes inverting of the output. It is equivalent
to feeding the output through a NOT gate. For example the NAND
(Not AND) gate symbol shown on the right is the same as an AND
gate symbol but with the addition of an inverting circle on the
output."

http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/gates.htm

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 05:49:24 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:

> On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:15:57 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 07 May 2012 20:20:27 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote:
>
>> >> "Nor" is a a
>> >> conjunction; to write "And nor" is about as reasonable as to write
>> >> "and but".
>> >
>> >
>> Arguments that cast a word that can be any one of several parts of
>> speech as one and one only are self-defeating. I imagine that in the
>> example cited it is an adverb; compare "Just as you would not, so
>> neither would they." (Sample of "neither" as adverb from the AHD5.)
>
> Eric Walker, meet Eric Walker.

The thrust of that bon mot escapes me. If "nor" is normally a part of
speech other than a conjunction, the fact has escaped the compilers of
the AHD5. "Neither", on the other hand, can be any of several parts.

Can you enlighten me as your point?


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

Yes.

I first started working with logic circuitry very nearly 53 years ago.
We normally work with diagrammatic representations of logicircuitry.

When we used expressions there was a tendency to use functional
notation.

Rather than "A AND B" we would often use "AND(A,B)". That is useful
where there are more than two inputs. "AND(A,B,C,D,E)" is easier to
grasp than "A AND B AND C AND D AND E".

>"Some gate symbols have a circle on their output which means that
>their function includes inverting of the output. It is equivalent
>to feeding the output through a NOT gate. For example the NAND
>(Not AND) gate symbol shown on the right is the same as an AND
>gate symbol but with the addition of an inverting circle on the
>output."
>
>http://www.kpsec.freeuk.com/gates.htm

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 13:27:28 +0100, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>We normally work with diagrammatic representations of logicircuitry.

Lemme again.

"We normally worked with diagrammatic representations of logic
circuitry."

[Jerry Friedman]

I couldn't think of a use of "but nor" at first, but how about this?

"John's situation is different from Mary's. John can't drive."

"But nor can Mary, remember?"

As an American, I'd say "But neither can Mary," of course.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

This Brit would also use "neither".

[Sproz]

On May 8, 3:37 pm, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:

Google serves up over 9000 uses of "and nor" within The Guardian's
online content, over 20000 in The Telegraph's, and comparable numbers
in both for "but nor". It would seem to be established usage in BrE.

Mark

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> On Mon, 07 May 2012 14:02:34 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> writes:
>>
>>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:51 -0400, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.2a1082023...@news.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>> > Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
>>>> > nor" in BrE?
>>>>
>>>> In general, English has no constructive rules of grammar
>>>> (no rules determining what you must say or how it must be said.)
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree. But wouldn't you agree that it's legitimate to use
>>> "rules" as a shorthand for "the way educated speakers use the
>>> language when they're speaking carefully and especially when they're
>>> writing"? At least, that's how I was using "rules" in my query.
>>
>>No; that changes too fast to constitute "rules".
>
> Are you sure? Eighteenth- or even seventeenth-century English isn't
> _radically_ different from ours; and we can go further back with
> little difficulty. Rules derived by consensus are none the less rules;
> and, for all our language's great flexibility, we wouldn't understand
> one another if we strayed too far from them.

Well, most of the things taught me as "rules" in school are *not* rules
to either expert writers or expert grammarians today. (Arguably they
*never were* rules, but some of them go back to Victorian times.)

[Snidely]

Stan Brown formulated the question :

> On Sun, 6 May 2012 18:26:06 -0400, Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 6 May 2012 15:11:51 -0400, Don Phillipson wrote:
>>>
>>> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.2a1082023...@news.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> Could a kind someone summarize the rules for using "nor" versus "and
>>>> nor" in BrE?
>>>
>>> In general, English has no constructive rules of grammar
>>> (no rules determining what you must say or how it must be said.)
>>
>> Yes, I agree. But wouldn't you agree that it's legitimate to use
>> "rules" as a shorthand for "the way educated speakers use the
>> language when they're speaking carefully and especially when they're
>> writing"? At least, that's how I was using "rules" in my query.
>

> Sorry for the duplication. I thought I caught this one before it
> went out, but I guess I didn't.

It has a life of its own.

Very much like most AUE threads (insert picture of wide-eyed
surprise).

/dps "FIG!"

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[Dr Nick]

I think so. It's an entirely different situation but it brings to mind
Fyneman's "... reality must take precedence over public relations, for
Nature cannot be fooled".

[Mike L]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:11:10 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker

<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:30:05 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
>> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>That construction is a solecism, pure and simple. "Nor" is a a
>>>conjunction; to write "And nor" is about as reasonable as to write "and
>>>but".
>>
>> How do you feel about "Nor, however,.." or "But nor..."? Conjunctions
>> all.
>
>
>Not all: "however" is often an adverb. "But nor" is just silly.

I punctuated my example with care, as a broad hint that my "however"
was not an adverb.

I'd actually use "neither" in these cases; but there's nothing wrong
with using conjunctions in pairs if necessary ("but because", "since,
however", etc.). So that can't be the reason for the discomfort I said
I felt with "and nor" but couldn't explain. Galloping into the fray
and pronouncing an expression silly or a solecism is jolly good fun,
and I like doing it as much as you do; but it isn't an explanation.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 10:32:52 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>

I don't understand. I think we're using different definitions of
"rule". My definition is one under which every word in your message is
formed and positioned according to agreed rules. Most of these we
almost certainly didn't learn at school. And they _are_ pretty much
the same ones they learned three hundred years ago.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 12:19:57 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

>On 2012-05-07 21:30:23 +0000, Mike L said:
>
>> [ …]
>
>> (Topically, I suppose it's a bit like the old failed European exchange
>> rate mechanism: "a snake in a tunnel", with a lot of wiggle room
>> within limits.)
>
>I'm not sure that the snake itself failed. Wasn't it more a case of
>politicians failing to follow the rules?

I plead poetic licence, m'lud.

>
>In a different example, if understand correctly the present problems of
>Greece are not caused by failure of the criteria for entering the euro
>system, but failure of the Greek governments to present truthful
>accounts, and failure of other governments to admit that the Greek
>accounts were fantasy.

True. And I _still_ don't understand how they fell for it: I think
they just believed what they wanted to believe. Yet more evidence that
top management rarely have any particular talent for the job, and
operate mainly by herd instinct and guesswork.

--
Mike.

[Jeff Urs]

"Jerry Friedman" <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fc925923-ee32-4d2e...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

> I couldn't think of a use of "but nor" at first, but how about this?
>
> "John's situation is different from Mary's. John can't drive."
>
> "But nor can Mary, remember?"
>
> As an American, I'd say "But neither can Mary," of course.

Would you, though? I'd just say "Neither can Mary" or "Mary can't
either".

--
Jeff

[Peter Moylan]

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> Years ago I read an article in Scientific American about logical gates
> and I had a lot of difficulty understanding what a nor gate was until I
> realized that it's a badly chosen name: it seems to mean "not or" rather
> than "nor" -- which corresponds better to a nand gate.

I think you might have independently discovered one of de Morgan's laws.

not (a and b) = (not a or not b)

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Robert Bannister]

No doubt, but it's me that wrote it.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

I wouldn't, nor would I be happy to hear it.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

I'm not entirely sure I understand the above unless you are saying that
a poorly printed "nor" looks a bit like "not". There is nothing wrong
with "and not" nor with "and nor".

--
Robert Bannister

[R H Draney]

Peter Moylan filted:

>
>Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> Years ago I read an article in Scientific American about logical gates
>> and I had a lot of difficulty understanding what a nor gate was until I
>> realized that it's a badly chosen name: it seems to mean "not or" rather
>> than "nor" -- which corresponds better to a nand gate.
>
>I think you might have independently discovered one of de Morgan's laws.
>
> not (a and b) = (not a or not b)

Sadly, I keep running across programmerasters who've never heard of de
Morgan....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 06:34:09 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:

[...]

> I couldn't think of a use of "but nor" at first, but how about this?
>
> "John's situation is different from Mary's. John can't drive."
>
> "But nor can Mary, remember?"
>
> As an American, I'd say "But neither can Mary," of course.

It wants to be simply:

"Nor can Mary, remember?"

Or the other form you used, which is fine. Or:

"Nor, however [adverb], can Mary, remember?"

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Tue, 08 May 2012 20:24:47 +0100, Mike L wrote:

[...]

> On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:11:10 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
>

>>On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:30:05 +0100, Mike L wrote:

[...]

>>> How do you feel about "Nor, however,.." or "But nor..."? Conjunctions
>>> all.

[...]

> I punctuated my example with care, as a broad hint that my "however" was
> not an adverb.

I would appreciate an explanation of that. A sample from the AHD5
illustrating the adverbial "however":

The first part was easy; the second part, however, took hours.

As a conjunction:

Dress however you like.

What in your punctuation suggests a conjunctive use?

> I'd actually use "neither" in these cases; but there's nothing wrong
> with using conjunctions in pairs if necessary ("but because", "since,

> however", etc.). . . .

I feel that that "however" is also adverbial. And "but because" is
ghastly, unless it is supposed to be "But, because &c &c, rest of clause."



--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Snidely]

R H Draney used his keyboard to write :

She was the evil sorceress in the King Arthur stories, wasn't she? I
think my Java text has that information.

/dps

[Sproz]

"I forgot my anniversary. So did my wife. I forgot my anniversary, and
so did my wife."

"I didn't remember my anniversary. Nor did my wife. I didn't remember
my anniversary, and nor did my wife."

I believe this is how "nor" works in BrE - as the negation of "so" (in
this usage, at least). If asked, I'd probably state a preference for
"neither" in place of "nor", but I believe the usage is unexceptional
- even if it's a solecism in AmE.

Mark

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 02:10:18 -0700, Sproz wrote:

[...]

> "I forgot my anniversary. So did my wife. I forgot my anniversary, and
> so did my wife."

Those uses of "so" are adverbial. Compare AHD, "so" as adverb, def 4
with example:

4. In the same way; likewise.
"You were on time, and so was I."

> "I didn't remember my anniversary. Nor did my wife. I didn't remember my
> anniversary, and nor did my wife."

That "nor" (like all uses or "nor") is conjunctive. The right casting
using it is:

I didn't remember my anniversary, nor did my wife."


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Sproz]

Or to put it another way; in the UK "nor" may also have an adverbial
which parallels the similar usage of "so".

Mark

[Peter Moylan]

So forgetting and remembering are syntactically different?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Ah, remaining vestigial benefits from my math degree!

[Rich Ulrich]

Okay. I'll try again. Infelicitous redundancy.

I was explaining why "and neither" would seem fine, but not "and nor."
For me, the word "nor" already contains a strong implication of "and".
Plus, I've seldom experienced "and nor".

However, by today, "and nor" is already seeming to be more
natural to me than it was when this discussion started.

--
Rich Ulrich

[Mike L]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2012 20:24:47 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:11:10 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
>>
>>>On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:30:05 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>> How do you feel about "Nor, however,.." or "But nor..."? Conjunctions
>>>> all.
>
>[...]
>
>> I punctuated my example with care, as a broad hint that my "however" was
>> not an adverb.
>
>I would appreciate an explanation of that. A sample from the AHD5
>illustrating the adverbial "however":
>
> The first part was easy; the second part, however, took hours.

That's very strange. I'm ready to disagree with that dictionary. In
that sentence, "however" is to my mind clearly an adversative
conjunction, introducing a contrast, and is essentially synonymous
with "but". As an adverb, it would have to modify an adjective, a
verb, or another adverb; and it doesn't.

>
>As a conjunction:
>
> Dress however you like.

That's clearly not a conjunction: it's synonymous with "in whatever
manner", which is an adverbial phrase.

>
>What in your punctuation suggests a conjunctive use?

The surrounding commas. As you know, reading is a constructive, even
cooperative, activity.

>
>> I'd actually use "neither" in these cases; but there's nothing wrong
>> with using conjunctions in pairs if necessary ("but because", "since,
>> however", etc.). . . .
>
>I feel that that "however" is also adverbial. And "but because" is
>ghastly, unless it is supposed to be "But, because &c &c, rest of clause."

Well, yes. I'm not sure how else I might use the pairing.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 00:36:48 -0700, Snidely <snide...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Morgan la Faye: I don't think she was "de" anything. Fata Morgana,
too.

--
Mike.

[Jerry Friedman]

On May 8, 3:08 pm, "Jeff Urs" <jeff....@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

That's far too good a question. After having failed to remember all
the times in my life that I've had such things to say, I can only tell
that I think I'd be more likely to leave out the "but", just as you
say. On the other hand, Mr. Google does find people using "but" in
this situation.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

meaning?

> which parallels the similar usage of "so".

The OED says, "nor, conj.1 (and adv.)". However, it doesn't give any
examples of "and nor" or "but not", which it really should.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On May 9, 3:29 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, 08 May 2012 20:24:47 +0100, Mike L wrote:
> >> On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:11:10 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
> >>>On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:30:05 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>
> >[...]
>
> >>>> How do you feel about "Nor, however,.." or "But nor..."? Conjunctions
> >>>> all.
>
> >[...]
>
> >> I punctuated my example with care, as a broad hint that my "however" was
> >> not an adverb.
>
> >I would appreciate an explanation of that.  A sample from the AHD5
> >illustrating the adverbial "however":
>
> >   The first part was easy; the second part, however, took hours.
>
> That's very strange. I'm ready to disagree with that dictionary. In
> that sentence, "however" is to my mind clearly an adversative
> conjunction, introducing a contrast, and is essentially synonymous
> with "but". As an adverb, it would have to modify an adjective, a
> verb, or another adverb; and it doesn't.

The OED lists "however" only as an adverb. They accept adverbs as
modifying entire sentences. For instance, one meaning of
"regrettably" is " 2. As a sentence adverb: it is to be regretted
(that); unfortunately".

I certainly agree that "Sentence A. However, sentence B." means the
same thing as "Sentence A, but sentence B." One reason not to see
"however" as a conjunction, however, is its flexibility in position,
in contrast to the usual requirement that conjunctions go between the
conjuncts. Another may be that non-subordinating conjunctions can
conjoin any two phrases with the same function, as in "The answer was
not '17.5' but 'the Glorious Revolution'." You can't do anything like
that with "however".

(There might be an(other) exception to that "rule" I just implied,
though.)

> >As a conjunction:
>
> >   Dress however you like.
>
> That's clearly not a conjunction: it's synonymous with "in whatever
> manner", which is an adverbial phrase.

...

It conjoins two clauses, a fact that might be clearer in "You may
dress however you like." The function of the whole clause in the
sentence is adverbial, so I'm inclined to think that calling "however"
a (subordinating) adverb or a (subordinating) conjunction or a
subordinator is a matter of taste.

> >> I'd actually use "neither" in these cases; but there's nothing wrong
> >> with using conjunctions in pairs if necessary ("but because", "since,
> >> however", etc.). . . .
>
> >I feel that that "however" is also adverbial.  And "but because" is
> >ghastly, unless it is supposed to be "But, because &c &c, rest of clause."
>
> Well, yes. I'm not sure how else I might use the pairing.

The difference is that in "But, because A, B", the "but" and the
"because" conjoin different things, but in "Not A and nor B", "and"
and "nor" conjoin the same things. Unless you interpret "nor" as an
adverb, which from what you and others have said strikes me as
entirely reasonable in BrE, at least in informal styles.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Don Phillipson]

"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message

news:MPG.2a10c48a1...@news.individual.net...

> Yes, I agree. But wouldn't you agree that it's legitimate to use
> "rules" as a shorthand for "the way educated speakers use the
> language when they're speaking carefully and especially when they're
> writing"? At least, that's how I was using "rules" in my query.

Perhaps not.
1. There is a pre-existing or classical distinction between literary
English and good spoken English.
2. Invocation of rules implies it is (or ought to be) possible to
formulate individual rules (which we may collate as rules of
grammar or style.) Observed patterns of uniformity among
educated speakers make no such implication (and neither
does IBM Watson.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Robert Bannister]

Never tell a lady she looks Fata in that dress.

--
Robert Bannister

[Robert Bannister]

I have already pointed you to the Oxford online dictionary that states
clearly "conjunction and adverb". There aren't a lot of English words
that are only one part of speech. Obviously, "neither" can also be a
pronoun which "nor" cannot, but otherwise they are the same.
--
Robert Bannister

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 02:47:36 -0700, Sproz wrote:

[...]

> Or to put it another way; in the UK "nor" may also have an adverbial
> which parallels the similar usage of "so".

While the AHD is, as its names says, "American", they do include uses
from other English-speaking lands, and record no non-conjunctive "nor".
Neither does my hardcopy edition of the OED.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 12:33:46 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:

[...]

> I have already pointed you to the Oxford online dictionary that states
> clearly "conjunction and adverb". There aren't a lot of English words
> that are only one part of speech. Obviously, "neither" can also be a
> pronoun which "nor" cannot, but otherwise they are the same.

I have combed your posts on this thread and do not seem able to find the
reference. Could you repeat it, please? (I am assuming that you are
saying that that dictionary credits "nor" with an adverbial use,
something neither the latest AHD nor my older hard copy of the OED does.)


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Eric Walker]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 22:29:29 +0100, Mike L wrote:

> On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

[...]

>>I would appreciate an explanation of that. A sample from the AHD5
>>illustrating the adverbial "however":
>>
>> The first part was easy; the second part, however, took hours.
>
> That's very strange. I'm ready to disagree with that dictionary. In that
> sentence, "however" is to my mind clearly an adversative conjunction,
> introducing a contrast, and is essentially synonymous with "but". As an
> adverb, it would have to modify an adjective, a verb, or another adverb;
> and it doesn't.

As in "The first part was easy; the second part, but, took hours"?

The conjunctive use, which is much less common than the adverbial, is
marked out by, among other things, a lack of the very punctuation claimed
as showing it:

"However do you manage that?" [OED]


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Sproz]

On May 9, 11:09 pm, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> It conjoins two clauses, a fact that might be clearer in "You may
> dress however you like."

Clear as mud to me, I'm afraid. What are the two phrases being
conjoined here?

Mark

[Jerry Friedman]

The clauses are "You may dress" and "you like". According to /The
Cambridge Grammar of the English Language/, p. 1075, "the verb in this
construction... is interpreted as if it had a clausal complement,
e.g.... /She can go wherever she wants to go/." Thus one can say the
clauses are "You may dress" and "You like to dress." There is, as
usual, a "gap" in the subordinate clause, in this case the manner of
dressing, which corresponds to the "relative", namely "how".

"Relative", not "conjunction", is what the CGEL calls these words.
However, the AHD calls them "conjunctions", which it defines as "The
part of speech that serves to connect words, phrases, clauses, or
sentences." So does Merriam-Webster. The OED calls it an adverb
(though it lists the corresponding use of "when" under "relative and
conjunctive uses"). Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on the Random
House Dictionary, says "however" is an adverb in "We will allow you to
travel however you please" but a conjunction in "Arrange your hours
however you like." I'm not sure what distinction it's pointing out.

Internal consistency aside, I suspect the choice of terminology is a
matter of emphasis. If the important thing to you is that the words
connect clauses, you call them conjunctions. If it's that the
following clause is always subordinate, you call them relatives or
subordinators. If it's the function of the subordinate clause in the
sentence, you call them adverbs, pronouns, etc. Then there are
phrases such as "relative adverb" and "subordinating conjuction".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

The on-line OED does.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Mike L]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 07:52:25 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker

<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 09 May 2012 22:29:29 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
>> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>>I would appreciate an explanation of that. A sample from the AHD5
>>>illustrating the adverbial "however":
>>>
>>> The first part was easy; the second part, however, took hours.
>>
>> That's very strange. I'm ready to disagree with that dictionary. In that
>> sentence, "however" is to my mind clearly an adversative conjunction,
>> introducing a contrast, and is essentially synonymous with "but". As an
>> adverb, it would have to modify an adjective, a verb, or another adverb;
>> and it doesn't.
>
>As in "The first part was easy; the second part, but, took hours"?

If you really prefer to think I'm a bloody idiot, feel free.
Otherwise, consider "The first part was easy, but the second part took
hours."

>
>The conjunctive use, which is much less common than the adverbial, is
>marked out by, among other things, a lack of the very punctuation claimed
>as showing it:
>
> "However do you manage that?" [OED]

If that's a conjunction, I may consider resigning from the human race.
It's an interrogative adverb compounded with an intensifier. The
sub-entry in which OED quotes it (from itself in the original edition)
reads:

< 5. Interrogative (and conjunctive): How, in any circumstances or way
whatever? (See _ever_ adv. 8d) colloq.
[1607 R. C. tr. H. Estienne World of Wonders 240, I shal desire
him to consider how ever it was possible.]
1871 B. Taylor tr. Goethe Faust I. xiii. 179 However is it, such A
man can think and know so much?
1899 N.E.D. at However, Mod. However do you manage that?>

The conjunctive use (and, last time I heard, that didn't mean
"conjunction") seems to be the bracketed 1607 quotation; but that use
could as well be interpreted as indirect speech using an
interrogative.

--
Mike.

[Mike L]

Especially if she's a ruthless fairy.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nor?view=uk

nor

Pronunciation: /nɔː, nə/
conjunction & adverb

1used before the second or further of two or more alternatives (the
first being introduced by a negative such as ‘neither’ or ‘not’) to
indicate that they are each untrue or each do not happen: they were
neither cheap nor convenient the sheets were never washed, nor the
towels, nor his shirts
[as adverb]literary term for neither. nor God nor demon can undo
the done

2used to introduce a further negative statement: ‘I don’t see how.’
‘Nor do I.’

3 [conjunction or preposition] archaic or dialect than: she thinks
she knows better nor me

noun
(usually NOR) Electronics

a Boolean operator which gives the value one if and only if all
operands have a value of zero and otherwise has a value of zero.
(also NOR gate) a circuit which produces an output signal only when
there are no signals on any of the input connections.

--
Robert Bannister

[Eric Walker]

On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:29:07 +0100, Mike L wrote:

[...]

> If you really prefer to think I'm a bloody idiot, feel free. Otherwise,
> consider "The first part was easy, but the second part took hours."

That is not what you said. What you said, re the AHD5's example of an
adverbial "however"--

The first part was easy; the second part, however, took hours.

--was:

In that sentence, "however" is to my mind clearly an adversative
conjunction, introducing a contrast, and is essentially synonymous
with "but".

If you undertake to argue with reputable dictionaries, you could at least
be exact as to what you are and are not maintaining. "Essentially" is an
umbrella that only spreads so wide.

Then, when the OED gives an example of a conjunctive "however"--

"However do you manage that?" [OED]

--you again assert that the dictionary compilers must be wrong because
they do not agree with you. Sheer authority is not an invulnerable
bastion, but I think that banging up against two in a row is likely to
leave some bruises.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Mike Page]

In what straightforward way is 'However' in 'However do you manage that
conjunctive?'

--
MP

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 09:05:29 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:

[...]

> http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nor?view=uk

>
> [as adverb]literary term for neither. nor God nor demon can undo
> the done

Thank you for the URL.

That is obviously a rare and uncommon form.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[John Holmes]

Conjunctivitis does not help when you are trying to read the small print
in a dictionary.


--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

[Peter Moylan]

Eric Walker wrote:

> Then, when the OED gives an example of a conjunctive "however"--
>
> "However do you manage that?" [OED]
>
> --you again assert that the dictionary compilers must be wrong because
> they do not agree with you. Sheer authority is not an invulnerable
> bastion, but I think that banging up against two in a row is likely to
> leave some bruises.

The dictionary compilers didn't assert that that example was
conjunctive; which is a good thing, because they'd have had to be
completely off their rockers to so assert.

For interrogative uses of that kind, I myself prefer to put a space in
the middle of "how ever". I'm even tempted to bracket the "ever" with
commas, on the grounds that the "how" is the essential part of the
meaning. I have to accept, however, that many people do run the whole
thing into a single word.

I do write it as a single word when using it as a conjunction, as in the
last sentence of the preceding paragraph. Likewise for an adverbial use,
although I rarely use it as an adverb.

[Mike L]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 03:44:33 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker
<em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 10 May 2012 22:29:07 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> If you really prefer to think I'm a bloody idiot, feel free. Otherwise,
>> consider "The first part was easy, but the second part took hours."
>
>That is not what you said. What you said, re the AHD5's example of an
>adverbial "however"--
>
> The first part was easy; the second part, however, took hours.
>
>--was:
>
> In that sentence, "however" is to my mind clearly an adversative
> conjunction, introducing a contrast, and is essentially synonymous
> with "but".
>
>If you undertake to argue with reputable dictionaries, you could at least
>be exact as to what you are and are not maintaining. "Essentially" is an
>umbrella that only spreads so wide.

I said "essentially", because "however", though it means much the same
as "but", carries a slightly different force. You'll find a lot of
pairs like that in English.

>
>Then, when the OED gives an example of a conjunctive "however"--
>
> "However do you manage that?" [OED]
>
>--you again assert that the dictionary compilers must be wrong because
>they do not agree with you. Sheer authority is not an invulnerable
>bastion, but I think that banging up against two in a row is likely to
>leave some bruises.

For some reason you've snipped what I actually said, which makes
discussion quite difficult.

--
Mike.

[Stan Brown]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 02:10:18 -0700 (PDT), Sproz wrote:
>
> "I forgot my anniversary. So did my wife. I forgot my anniversary,
> and so did my wife."
>

> "I didn't remember my anniversary. Nor did my wife. I didn't remember
> my anniversary, and nor did my wife."
>

> I believe this is how "nor" works in BrE - as the negation of "so" (in
> this usage, at least). If asked, I'd probably state a preference for
> "neither" in place of "nor", but I believe the usage is unexceptional
> - even if it's a solecism in AmE.

Thanks, Mark!

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[Eric Walker]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 05:51:36 +0100, Mike Page wrote:

[...]

> In what straightforward way is 'However' in 'However do you manage that
> conjunctive?'

As the old-time radio newsmen used to say, "I don't write 'em, folks, I
just read 'em."

OED, "however":

5. Interrogative (and conjunctive): How, in any circumstances or way

whatever? (See 'ever' adv. 8d) colloq.

[older examples elided]
_Mod._ However do you manage that?

Verbatim.

--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Mike Page]

How ever (as some prefer to spell it) is that conjunctive? How does it
accord with the OED's sense of conjunctive as applied to grammar? What
is it joining up? It can stand purely on its own. (I'm not denying that
one can contrive conjunctive usages.)

--
MP

[Mike L]

Oh dear. I'll be most surprised if you didn't see my full and verbatim
quotation of that subentry from OED, with my comment that it didn't
appear to say the example you've left in was "conjunctive", and that
in the example "however" was clearly an interrogative adverb. I
commented also that, TTBOMK, "conjunctive" doesn't mean the same thing
as "conjunction".

[But*] I'm sure [,however,*] that you aren't intentionally derailing
the discussion. (This phase of which, I may add, is purely tangential
to a demonstration that it can be perfectly acceptable to have two
conjunctions together. You'll remember that we were enquiring what
might be wrong with the pairing "and nor".)

*The choice of appropriate conjunction is left to the taste of the
reader.

--
Mike.

[Jerry Friedman]

For whenever this post makes it out of GG, I should say that this
adverbial use is limited to the obsolete usage mentioned elsewhere:
the first "nor" in "nor A nor B". However, I still think the OED may
be behind the times in British usage. When they catch up, it will be
interesting to see what part of speech they call "nor" in "and nor"
and whether they call it non-standard.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

Even the OED's younger and more current sibling, the ODO, has neither
"and nor" nor "but nor".
http://oxforddictionaries.com/

What I have just learnt is the "nor" is proably a contraction of the
obsolete word "nother" meaning "neither".

In the quotations in the OED the sequence is sometimes "nother...nor",
sometimes "nor...nother". aometimes "nor...nother...nor" and sometimes
"nother...nother". Only "nother...nor...nother" is missing. I suspect
that is by chance rather than it never having been used:

nother, adv.1 (and conj.)

selected quotes:

1474 in 10th Rep. Royal Comm. Hist. MSS (1885) App. v. 311 That
no manere man nor woman procure nother take away no childe.
a1529 J. Skelton Ware the Hauke (1843) 196 Nor yet dronken
Bacus; Nother Olibrius, Nor Dionisyus.
1581 J. Bell tr. W. Haddon & J. Foxe Against Jerome Osorius 80 b,
Nor in eating and drinking nother in chambring and wantonnesse.


1496 in F. W. Weaver Somerset Medieval Wills (1901) 340, 12
shepe nother of the best nother of the worste.
1530 J. Rastell New Bk. Purgatory ii. i, Nother by
exhortacyon..nother by..punysshment..nor other thynge.
1551 W. Turner Herball (1568) i. 84 It hath nother seedes like
vnto marrishe mallowe, nother may a man make roopes of it.
1588 A. King tr. P. Canisius Cathechisme or Schort Instr. 109
Then efteruart nother brigued, or desyred, nother violentlie
inuaded ye Bishoprick.



--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Katy Jennison]

On 09/05/2012 22:35, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On May 8, 3:08 pm, "Jeff Urs"<jeff....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Jerry Friedman"<jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:fc925923-ee32-4d2e...@l15g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> I couldn't think of a use of "but nor" at first, but how about this?
>>
>>> "John's situation is different from Mary's. John can't drive."
>>
>>> "But nor can Mary, remember?"
>>
>>> As an American, I'd say "But neither can Mary," of course.
>>
>> Would you, though? I'd just say "Neither can Mary" or "Mary can't
>> either".
>
> That's far too good a question. After having failed to remember all
> the times in my life that I've had such things to say, I can only tell
> that I think I'd be more likely to leave out the "but", just as you
> say. On the other hand, Mr. Google does find people using "but" in
> this situation.
>

You'd say it, though, if you preceded it with "Yes", as in "Yes, but nor
can Mary." Or indeed, "No, but nor can Mary."

--
Katy Jennison

[Jerry Friedman]

Or "True, but..." I think I would (with "neither"). Oddly enough,
none of the examples of "but neither can" at COCA were of this form
(that I noticed), and only one rather lurid one of "but neither is"
was.

"MANKIEWICZ: (Voiceover) For the record Charney says he doesn't recall
whether Mary Nelson was present at the infamous sock meeting, but he
says there wouldn't have been anything wrong with wearing the item in
front of her. He says he was simply modeling a potential new product.

"(Photo-of-Nelson)

"Mr-FINK: (From videotape) Does it cover the entire buttocks?

"Mr-CHARNEY: (From videotape) No, but neither does a thong."

NBC /Dateline/ (2006/07/28)

"Who's the Boss?; Dov Charney defends his unorthodox workplace
atmosphere in sexual harassment lawsuit"

--
Jerry Friedman is glad to see they're on top of the important news.

[Mike L]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 15:09:41 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On May 9, 3:29�pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 May 2012 06:44:01 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker> <em...@owlcroft.com> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 08 May 2012 20:24:47 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 8 May 2012 07:11:10 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker

>> >>>On Mon, 07 May 2012 23:30:05 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>>
>> >[...]
>>

>> >>>> How do you feel about "Nor, however,.." or "But nor..."? Conjunctions
>> >>>> all.
>>
>> >[...]
>>
>> >> I punctuated my example with care, as a broad hint that my "however" was
>> >> not an adverb.

>>
>> >I would appreciate an explanation of that. �A sample from the AHD5
>> >illustrating the adverbial "however":
>>

>> > � The first part was easy; the second part, however, took hours.
>>
>> That's very strange. I'm ready to disagree with that dictionary. In

>> that sentence, "however" is to my mind clearly an adversative
>> conjunction, introducing a contrast, and is essentially synonymous

>> with "but". As an adverb, it would have to modify an adjective, a
>> verb, or another adverb; and it doesn't.
>

>The OED lists "however" only as an adverb. They accept adverbs as
>modifying entire sentences. For instance, one meaning of
>"regrettably" is " 2. As a sentence adverb: it is to be regretted
>(that); unfortunately".

(Sorry not to have replied sooner.)
I know it's what OED says, but I'm not at all happy with the idea of
the adverbial "however" acting as a sentence-adverb: unlike the usual
familiar sentence-adverbs, it seems to have no clear lexical meaning.
I suppose it might be seen as an equivalent of things like "Whichever
way you slice it...", but that's rather like saying humans are fish:
by ancestral reasoning, all words are grunts.
>
>I certainly agree that "Sentence A. However, sentence B." means the
>same thing as "Sentence A, but sentence B." One reason not to see
>"however" as a conjunction, however, is its flexibility in position,
>in contrast to the usual requirement that conjunctions go between the
>conjuncts. Another may be that non-subordinating conjunctions can
>conjoin any two phrases with the same function, as in "The answer was
>not '17.5' but 'the Glorious Revolution'." You can't do anything like
>that with "however".

I've always considered the flexible positioning of "however" to be a
means of showing whether it's a conjunction or an adverb in any given
sentence, a habit conditioned by its having always been the usual
translation of the Latin conjunction _autem_, which may never open a
sentence. I suggest that "however" used adversatively is, or used to
be, more mandarin than popular usage, which, if true, would tend to
preserve a rule which some might find pernickety.

In addition, I pray in aid Nesfield's 1893 English Grammar, which
_does_ list "however" as a conjunction.

>
>(There might be an(other) exception to that "rule" I just implied,
>though.)
>
>> >As a conjunction:
>>
>> > � Dress however you like.
>>
>> That's clearly not a conjunction: it's synonymous with "in whatever
>> manner", which is an adverbial phrase.
>...

>
>It conjoins two clauses, a fact that might be clearer in "You may

>dress however you like." The function of the whole clause in the
>sentence is adverbial, so I'm inclined to think that calling "however"
>a (subordinating) adverb or a (subordinating) conjunction or a
>subordinator is a matter of taste.

OK. So let's ditch "ever", and consider "Dress _how_ you like", and
"Come _when_ you can." I don't think either of those could be called a
conjunction. They do have a connecting function, but I think we've
agreed that conjunctives or conjuncts aren't, though some do become,
conjunctions.

>
>> >> I'd actually use "neither" in these cases; but there's nothing wrong
>> >> with using conjunctions in pairs if necessary ("but because", "since,
>> >> however", etc.). . . .
>>
>> >I feel that that "however" is also adverbial. �And "but because" is
>> >ghastly, unless it is supposed to be "But, because &c &c, rest of clause."
>>
>> Well, yes. I'm not sure how else I might use the pairing.
>
>The difference is that in "But, because A, B", the "but" and the
>"because" conjoin different things, but in "Not A and nor B", "and"
>and "nor" conjoin the same things. Unless you interpret "nor" as an
>adverb, which from what you and others have said strikes me as
>entirely reasonable in BrE, at least in informal styles.

Which brings us right back to our quest: all this conjunction stuff
was just dealing with a suggestion that "and nor" was wrong because
one couldn't, it was alleged, have two consecutive conjunctions. I
still don't know why I'm uncomfortable with "and nor"; but I suspect
that no conclusive answer is to be found in our language's slippery
word classes.

--
Mike.

[Robert Bannister]

There are always problems when English is treated as if it were like
Latin. If, on the other hand, you compare "however" with German "aber",
you see immediately that the two are used in exactly the same way,
except that "aber" is never set off in parenthesis, but treated like any
other adverb even though it is also a coordinating conjunction.

(The difference between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions is
important in German because it affects the word order).


--
Robert Bannister

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:08:20 +0100, Mike L wrote:
> I know it's what OED says, but I'm not at all happy with the idea of
> the adverbial "however" acting as a sentence-adverb: unlike the usual
> familiar sentence-adverbs, it seems to have no clear lexical meaning.
> I suppose it might be seen as an equivalent of things like "Whichever
> way you slice it...", but that's rather like saying humans are fish:
> by ancestral reasoning, all words are grunts.

Maybe it's a I-don't-know-the-name-for it: a simple introductory
word, like "actually". "Actually, things are going pretty badly." I
suppose one could parse "actually" as an adverb modifying " "going",
but that doesn't feel right. So either it's a sentence adverb, or
it's just a generalized transition word.

[Mike L]

On Sat, 19 May 2012 20:56:48 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 May 2012 16:08:20 +0100, Mike L wrote:
>> I know it's what OED says, but I'm not at all happy with the idea of
>> the adverbial "however" acting as a sentence-adverb: unlike the usual
>> familiar sentence-adverbs, it seems to have no clear lexical meaning.
>> I suppose it might be seen as an equivalent of things like "Whichever
>> way you slice it...", but that's rather like saying humans are fish:
>> by ancestral reasoning, all words are grunts.
>
>Maybe it's a I-don't-know-the-name-for it: a simple introductory
>word, like "actually". "Actually, things are going pretty badly." I
>suppose one could parse "actually" as an adverb modifying " "going",
>but that doesn't feel right. So either it's a sentence adverb, or
>it's just a generalized transition word.

But "actually" has obvious lexical content: it's the same as "in
fact", among other adverbial expressions. When "however" is equivalent
to "but", people, and well-informed people at that, have been calling
it a conjunction for generations.

--
Mike.