Can 'both' refer to three things?
Gert Kienast
I'm currently proofreading a paper a collegue wrote and stumbled over
the sentence:
"This depends on the correct function of both the web server, the
application server and the search server."
Here both refers to three things. I see his point that "both ... and"
means something like "... as well as", but it still sound strange to me.
If it is wrong what suggestions do you have?
Thank you for any help
Gert
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gert Kienast
Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
phone: +43-316-876-1182 fax: +43-316-876-1191
web: http://iis.joanneum.ac.at
e-mail: mailto:gert.k...@joanneum.ac.at
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lieblich
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm currently proofreading a paper a collegue wrote and stumbled over
> the sentence:
>
> "This depends on the correct function of both the web server, the
> application server and the search server."
>
> Here both refers to three things. I see his point that "both ... and"
> means something like "... as well as", but it still sound strange to me.
> If it is wrong what suggestions do you have?
In these days of avant-garde usages, one must always be wary of labeling
anything "wrong." But, that aside, I sure wouldn't introduce a list of
three items with "both," and I think many a reader of what your
colleague wrote would wonder what his (her?) first language is.
The fix: just delete the word "both."
Bob Lieblich
SLHinton17
>
>I'm currently proofreading a paper a colleague wrote and stumbled over
>the sentence:
>
>"This depends on the correct function of both the web server, the
>application server and the search server."
The word "both" applies to only two things, and I have not come across any
frequent usage that would indicate otherwise. To me, at least, your
colleague's statement is not correct. The word "both" is not needed there
anyway; just take it out and you have a perfectly clear sentence.
"Both" has been misused in this way for comic effect. In the old "Popeye"
comic strip ("Thimble Theatre"), Mr. Wimpy was known to say, in ordering one of
his beloved hamburgers, "I'll have lettuce, onion, and pickle both!"
Sam Hinton
La Jolla, CA
Bob Lipton
>
> Hi!
>
> I'm currently proofreading a paper a collegue wrote and stumbled over
> the sentence:
>
> "This depends on the correct function of both the web server, the
> application server and the search server."
>
> means something like "... as well as", but it still sound strange to me.
> If it is wrong what suggestions do you have?
We seem to be showing signs of people not understanding the comparative
in English. While people continue to understand the singular, the
unique, the one-of-a-kind, the distinction between 'two' and 'many'
seems beyond the grasp of a large percentage of native speakers. True,
in the olden days, we used to count 'em off while marching:
One two three many!
One two three many!
Many times One is many.
Many times two is more.
Many times three is a whole lot.
Many times four is hoo hah!
....and so on, ad infinitum, frightening the pigeons no end. Notice that
we differentiated between three and many whereas these crazy kids....
but I digress. These days they only let me out of the jacket with the
long arms to answer questions like these and I'd best jump to it.
'Both' refers to two things. If you wish to indicate that you must
consider the three servers separately, try substituting 'each of' for
'both'.
Bob
Polar
<bobl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Gert Kienast wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm currently proofreading a paper a collegue wrote and stumbled over
>> the sentence:
>>
>> "This depends on the correct function of both the web server, the
>> application server and the search server."
>>
[...]
>'Both' refers to two things. If you wish to indicate that you must
>consider the three servers separately, try substituting 'each of' for
>'both'.
Or leave it out entirely.
--
Polar
N.Mitchum
-----
> I'm currently proofreading a paper a collegue wrote and stumbled over
> the sentence:
>
> "This depends on the correct function of both the web server, the
> application server and the search server."
>
> means something like "... as well as", but it still sound strange to me.
"Both" may refer to three things in sloppy writing and sloppy
thinking, but ordinarily it can only refer to two things. Logic
and consensus are on your side.
-----
> If it is wrong what suggestions do you have?
>.....
It is indeed wrong. Strike the word "both."
----NM
Mike West
Gert Kienast <gert.k...@joanneum.ac.at> wrote in message
news:37DE026B...@joanneum.ac.at...
> Hi!
>
> I'm currently proofreading a paper a collegue wrote and stumbled over
> the sentence:
>
> "This depends on the correct function of both the web server, the
> application server and the search server."
>
> Here both refers to three things. I see his point that "both ... and"
> means something like "... as well as", but it still sound strange to me.
>
> Gert
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gert Kienast
> Institute of Information Systems & Information Management
> JOANNEUM RESEARCH Forschungsgesellschaft mbH
> Steyrergasse 17, A-8010 Graz, AUSTRIA
>
> phone: +43-316-876-1182 fax: +43-316-876-1191
> web: http://iis.joanneum.ac.at
> e-mail: mailto:gert.k...@joanneum.ac.at
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
If I were editing that, without the specialized knowledge that you
undoubtedly have, I would query whether the writer meant:
(1) "This depends on the correct function of both web servers: the
application server and the search server."
--or --
(2) "This depends on the correct function of both web servers, the
application server and the search server."
--or--
(3) This depends on the correct function of the web server, the application
server and the search server."
In any case, the sentence does not make sense as written.
Mike
Graham
Gert Kienast wrote in message <37DE026B...@joanneum.ac.at>...
>Hi!
>
>I'm currently proofreading a paper a collegue wrote and stumbled over
>the sentence:
>
>"This depends on the correct function of both the web server, the
>application server and the search server."
>
>Here both refers to three things. I see his point that "both ... and"
>means something like "... as well as", but it still sound strange to
me.
>If it is wrong what suggestions do you have?
>
Yes - leave the word out. And I believe that 'function' should read
'functioning'. This emphasises the 'operation' aspect rather than the
task immediately at hand. In fact I may even try changing 'function'
to 'operation'.
HTH
--
Graham W. D-I-Y Astro Projects, Digital & Film Camera Photos
WIMBORNE http://www.graham-wood.freeserve.co.uk/
Dorset Wessex Astronomical Society - Program, Location
UK http://www.wessex-astro-society.freeserve.co.uk/
Chris McCabe
but what do i know? i'm just a lurking technical communications major at
utah state university, but i love browsing through this newsgroup. this
particular thread caught my eye, and i decided to post. thanks.
chris mccabe
Bob Newman
I've been trying to popularise "throth" for years, but unaccountably
it still hasn't caught on.
Bob Newman
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 10:08:11 +0200, Gert Kienast
<gert.k...@joanneum.ac.at> wrote:
>Hi!
>
>I'm currently proofreading a paper a collegue wrote and stumbled over
>the sentence:
>
>"This depends on the correct function of both the web server, the
>application server and the search server."
>
>Here both refers to three things. I see his point that "both ... and"
>means something like "... as well as", but it still sound strange to me.
>If it is wrong what suggestions do you have?
>