Is it correct to use multiple ORs or NORs correct in a sentence?
Disc Magnet
either or multiple nor's for neither. Let me give two examples.
1. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can say
that, it is either a rare plant or a cactus or a type of mushroom.
2. This thing is neither an insect nor an animal nor a plant.
Are these sentences correct? If not, what would be the right way to
write these?
R H Draney
Nothing wrong with either of those, but I would caution you against combining
both in one sentence; few people understand the precedence rules for boolean
operators....r
--
"Oy! A cat made of lead cannot fly."
- Mark Brader declaims a basic scientific principle
the Omrud
> Disc Magnet filted:
>>
>> Sometimes, in many sentences I feel like using multiple or's for an
>> either or multiple nor's for neither. Let me give two examples.
>>
>> 1. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can say
>> that, it is either a rare plant or a cactus or a type of mushroom.
>>
>> 2. This thing is neither an insect nor an animal nor a plant.
>>
>> Are these sentences correct? If not, what would be the right way to
>> write these?
>
> Nothing wrong with either of those, but I would caution you against combining
> both in one sentence; few people understand the precedence rules for boolean
> operators....r
Then there's the issue of whether you've used an inclusive OR, or an
exclusive OR.
--
David
Mark Brader
> that, it is either a rare plant or a cactus or a type of mushroom.
> 2. This thing is neither an insect nor an animal nor a plant.
Both are correct (except for the comma after "that", which is wrong).
Repeating the conjunction is an emphatic usage. (In speech, it may
also just be a way to add on a bit that you forgot the first time.)
A normal way to say it without emphasis would be:
1A. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can
say that it is either a rare plant, a cactus, or a type of mushroom.
2A. This thing is not an insect, an animal, or a plant.
In both cases, the last comma (the "serial comma") is optional.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "The only proven use of antimatter is the production
m...@vex.net | of Nobel Prizes in physics." -- Henry Spencer
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Disc Magnet
> > 1. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can say
> > that, it is either a rare plant or a cactus or a type of mushroom.
> > 2. This thing is neither an insect nor an animal nor a plant.
>
> Both are correct (except for the comma after "that", which is wrong).
> Repeating the conjunction is an emphatic usage. (In speech, it may
> also just be a way to add on a bit that you forgot the first time.)
> A normal way to say it without emphasis would be:
>
> 1A. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can
> say that it is either a rare plant, a cactus, or a type of mushroom.
>
> 2A. This thing is not an insect, an animal, or a plant.
>
> In both cases, the last comma (the "serial comma") is optional.
I have a question about the use of comma just before a conjunction. I
have seen it in many places but I don't know exactly where such a
comma (e.g. "bla, bla, bla, and bla") is okay and where it isn't.
Also, sometimes I need multiple and's in a sentence.
Tom and Cinderella and Dennis and Doug formed two teams and Harry and
Sally were the judges.
What I mean is:
(Tom and Cinderalla) and (Dennis and Doug) formed two teams and (Harry
and Sally) were the judges.
First team: Tom and Cindrella
Second team: Dennis and Doug
Judges: Harry and Sally
How to write such a sentence properly?
Nick
> Also, sometimes I need multiple and's in a sentence.
>
> Tom and Cinderella and Dennis and Doug formed two teams and Harry and
> Sally were the judges.
>
> What I mean is:
>
> (Tom and Cinderalla) and (Dennis and Doug) formed two teams and (Harry
> and Sally) were the judges.
>
> First team: Tom and Cindrella
> Second team: Dennis and Doug
> Judges: Harry and Sally
>
> How to write such a sentence properly?
It's not really possible - I don't know if other languages do it better
than English.
The second part - "Harry and Sally" is distinct enough, but the first
part doesn't leap out at you (although you can work out what it probably
means).
The only way really is to rewrite it. Even just re-ordering it makes it
slightly clearly (I think):
They formed two teams: Tom and Cinderella, and Dennis and Doug. Harry
and Sally were the judges.
That's quite a good place to use a comma I think.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
R H Draney
Yabbut, that's semantics, and the OP was asking about syntax....r
Jerry Friedman
> On Mar 14, 10:47 pm, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:
>
> > > 1. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can say
> > > that, it is either a rare plant or a cactus or a type of mushroom.
> > > 2. This thing is neither an insect nor an animal nor a plant.
(I take this to be the non-technical use of "animal" to mean
"mammal". Technically, insects are animals.)
> > Both are correct (except for the comma after "that", which is wrong).
> > Repeating the conjunction is an emphatic usage. (In speech, it may
> > also just be a way to add on a bit that you forgot the first time.)
Or uncertainty about whether you'll think of another item.
If you like fancy words, the repetition of the conjunction is called
"hypersyndeton".
> > A normal way to say it without emphasis would be:
>
> > 1A. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can
> > say that it is either a rare plant, a cactus, or a type of mushroom.
>
> > 2A. This thing is not an insect, an animal, or a plant.
>
> > In both cases, the last comma (the "serial comma") is optional.
>
> I have a question about the use of comma just before a conjunction. I
> have seen it in many places but I don't know exactly where such a
> comma (e.g. "bla, bla, bla, and bla") is okay and where it isn't.
...
That "serial comma" is necessary where it makes the sentence easier to
understand. It's not okay where it makes the sentence harder to
understand, which I think is far less common. Some will tell you that
if the reader's understanding of a sentence depends on a comma, you
should rewrite the sentence.
Some periodicals require the serial comma as part of their house style
and some (probably many more) forbid it. I prefer it, but I'm not a
publishing company.
--
Jerry Friedman
Prai Jei
continuum:
Conventional usage is exclusive irrespective of how many ORs are strung
together. In one of the examples, if it turns out to be a rare plant it is
not a cactus or a type of mushroom.
And why does English lack the conjunction NAND, which has had to be supplied
by logic circuit designers? "A nand B" would exclude the case of both A and
B but allow for either one, or for neither. When strung together in a
longer list it would mean "not all of..." but allow any subset including
the null set.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Stan Brown
<discm...@gmail.com>:
>
> Sometimes, in many sentences I feel like using multiple or's for an
> either or multiple nor's for neither. Let me give two examples.
>
> 1. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can say
> that, it is either a rare plant or a cactus or a type of mushroom.
Okay, but could also be "... a rare plant, a cactus, or a type of
mushroom".
> 2. This thing is neither an insect nor an animal nor a plant.
Not okay, because insects are animals. You can't say "this thing is
neither azure nor blue" because azure is a type of blue.
If you said, "this thing is neither an insect nor a crustacean nor an
arachnid" you would be correct.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Mark Brader
>> I have a question about the use of comma just before a conjunction. I
>> have seen it in many places but I don't know exactly where such a
>> comma (e.g. "bla, bla, bla, and bla") is okay and where it isn't.
I said, it's optional.
> That "serial comma" is necessary where it makes the sentence easier to
> understand. It's not okay where it makes the sentence harder to
> understand...
That's a bad rule. The best rule is to always use it. The next-best
rule is to never use it. (Some people feel that those should be
reversed.) If you switch from one style to the other, you make it
harder to understand.
--
Mark Brader | "And I won't like [this usage] any better if you
Toronto | produce examples from Shakespeare, Milton, Johnson ...
m...@vex.net | Or, indeed, myself." --Mike Lyle
Bertel Lund Hansen
> Yabbut, that's semantics, and the OP was asking about syntax....r
Your warning was about semantics.
--
Bertel, Denmark
Jerry Friedman
> >>> In both cases, the last comma (the "serial comma") is optional.
> >> I have a question about the use of comma just before a conjunction. I
> >> have seen it in many places but I don't know exactly where such a
> >> comma (e.g. "bla, bla, bla, and bla") is okay and where it isn't.
>
> I said, it's optional.
>
> > That "serial comma" is necessary where it makes the sentence easier to
> > understand. It's not okay where it makes the sentence harder to
> > understand...
>
> That's a bad rule. The best rule is to always use it. The next-best
> rule is to never use it. (Some people feel that those should be
> reversed.) If you switch from one style to the other, you make it
> harder to understand.
First of all, where were you when I wistfully suggested here years ago
that if readers could rely on the serial comma, certain sentences
would be unambiguous?
Second of all, several people told me that consistent use or non-use
of a serial comma wouldn't make anything easier to understand for
them, and well-judged inconsistency might make things easier. Where
are they now?
Third, what I wrote was not an overall rule, and what you snipped
modified it considerably. Here, if you like, is a rule that's
compatible (or almost) with what I wrote and contains something vital
that your rule leaves out:
Always use the serial comma. If you find that the resulting sentence
is hard to understand (including for people who don't use the serial
comma, insofar as you can imagine how they'll read it), rewrite the
sentence.
(The corresponding rule that starts "Never" is also workable, but I
don't like it as much and can't claim it's compatible with what I
wrote.)
--
Jerry Friedman
epr...@ash.nl
and P(H) = 0.3. Calculate the probability of:
a) Either E or F occurring.
b) Either F or H occurring.
c) Neither G nor H occurring.
d) Neither E nor H occurring.
Mark Brader
> E, F, G and H are four mutually exclusive events...
For those who were wondering, this was posted in response to a query
from 2010 (which it does not respond to).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable
m...@vex.net | from a feature." -- Rich Kulawiec (after Clarke)
Peter Moylan
question cannot be answered because the joint probabilities have not
been specified.
Or does "mutually exclusive" mean that the joint probabilities are zero?
In that case, the obvious answers are correct.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
bebe...@aol.com
> > 1. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can say
> > that, it is either a rare plant or a cactus or a type of mushroom.
>
> > 2. This thing is neither an insect nor an animal nor a plant.
>
> Both are correct (except for the comma after "that", which is wrong).
> Repeating the conjunction is an emphatic usage. (In speech, it may
> also just be a way to add on a bit that you forgot the first time.)
> A normal way to say it without emphasis would be:
>
> 1A. I am not entirely sure what it is but from my experience, I can
> say that it is either a rare plant, a cactus, or a type of mushroom.
>
> 2A. This thing is not an insect, an animal, or a plant.
>
> In both cases, the last comma (the "serial comma") is optional.
in the two sentences discussed, as the "or's" are apparently inclusive.
To elaborate on Jerry's remark that insects are animals, the sentence
"This thing is not an insect, an animal, or a plant", where the last
comma can denote exclusive "or's", is ambiguous as, in the case of, say,
a beetle, it could be answered with "Wrong, this thing is an insect and
an animal, but not a plant" as opposed to "Right, this thing is an insect
and an animal, but not a plant" if the "or's" are taken to be inclusive
(which they can also be if the comma is only meant as serial).
rta...@mycsp.org
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> I'm using Grammarly and I want to know is it good to use many and,
> but's and or's in a sentence.
--
athel
Peter Moylan
> I'm using Grammarly and I want to know is it good to use many and,
> but's and or's in a sentence.
That's usually a bad idea.
Joy Beeson
> I'm using Grammarly and I want to know is it good to use many and, but's and or's in a sentence.
A succession of "and"s can sound childishly breathless or grimly
emphatic, or it can drearily indicate that something went on and on
and on.
The general rule is that when you repeat a word, it draws attention to
the word. Whether repetition is a mistake depends on where the writer
wants to direct the reader's attention.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.