posted
"I have neither given or received, nor have I tolerated others' use of, unauthorized aid."
OK, initially, I would go with this one as wrong, BUT, it might not be. The subject is "I." "I have neither given nor tolerated" would be the base sentence. "received" could be connected to "given," but not needing an extra "nor."
Sorry if that makes NO SENSE, but it is the best I can do to explain it, because i forget all the technical terminology.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, that's what I would have thought. Except for one thing - the official Honor Code is posted in pretty much every building on campus, and it's posted as the first version.
So, basically, I've been wondering if there's some kind of rule where if it's doubled/embedded/whatever*, it gets changed to or, or if the official Honor Code was wrong. You'd think at a university they'd be careful about something like that, you know?
posted
Well, the basic sentence without the dependent clause is:
"I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid."
The clause "nor have I tolerated others' use of" is awkward to begin with, but it's an addition to that basic sentence. So, "nor" would be most proper, I would think.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You'd think at a university they'd be careful about something like that, you know?
This is the funniest thing I've read all day. And I'm only laughing to keep myself from crying. Even at universities, lots of people don't see the need for really thorough editing.
And there is no rule that I know of that would change the nor to or in that situation. The second example is correct. I can check in my grammar books after I get home from work (three hours from now).
[ August 05, 2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Der Grammatikfuehrer ]
IP: Logged |
posted
Ack. Sorry. Der Grammatikfuehrer has been a slacker. He's been spending his pressure few moments of free time reading for enjoyment, talking to his fiancee, and referring to himself in the third person. He will make an honest effort to tackle the question before (or perhaps over) the weekend.
Edit: I'm going to leave the error in there simply because it's funny.
[ August 06, 2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Wow. Is that a Freudian slip or something? I am feeling rather under pressure right now. Or maybe it's just one of those times when my brain grabbed a similar-sounding word. (I usually catch myself when that happens.) Or maybe I'll blame that "Should we have to pass the literacy test?" thread. Yeah, that's the ticket.
[ August 06, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Correlative conjunctions always appear in pairs -- you use them to link equivalent sentence elements. The most common correlative conjunctions are "both...and," "either...or," "neither...nor,", "not only...but also," "so...as," and "whether...or." (Technically correlative conjunctions consist simply of a co-ordinating conjunction linked to an adjective or adverb.)
The italicized words in the following sentences are correlative conjunctions:
Both my grandfather and my father worked in the steel plant. In this sentence, the correlative conjunction "both...and" is used to link the two noun phrases that act as the compound subject of the sentence: "my grandfather" and "my father".
Bring either a Jello salad or a potato scallop. Here the correlative conjunction "either...or" links two noun phrases: "a Jello salad" and "a potato scallop."
Corinne is trying to decide whether to go to medical school or to go to law school. Similarly, the correlative conjunction "whether ... or" links the two infinitive phrases "to go to medical school" and "to go to law school."
The explosion destroyed not only the school but also the neighbouring pub. In this example the correlative conjunction "not only ... but also" links the two noun phrases ("the school" and "neighbouring pub") which act as direct objects.
posted
Thanks, but can you use one "neither" for two "nors?"
You know, sometimes it is best to just change the whole sentence. It sounds like crap either way, no matter which one is correct.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait! I think I have something. The problem is with "given" or "received." The implication is that you can only do one at a time. Therefore, you EITHER gave OR received. The "neither" goes with the "nor" in the clause.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have neither given or received, nor have I tolerated others' use of, unauthorized aid.
--or--
I have neither given nor received, nor have I tolerated others' use of, unauthorized aid.
Actually, a "neither" can only have 1 correlative conjunction. That makes it so the actual "technically correct" way would be to change the syntax of the clauses and drop the second correlative for a new "neither:"
I have neither given nor received, neither have I tolerated others' use of unauthorized aid.
Of course, while this is "technically correct," in practice, 1 "neither" and 2 "nors" is acceptable usage. Meaning:
I have neither given nor received, nor have I tolerated others' use of, unauthorized aid.
If one wanted to get realllllllly "nazi-ish," one would also drop the comma after "of" and before "authorized." The clause doesn't need the delineation. One could do it like:
I have neither given, received, nor have I tolerated others' use of unauthorized aid.
Making it a series drops the awkwardness of the subordinate clause and also preserves the 1-1 correlative conjunction rule. It also makes the whole thing the base sentence which can be condensed to "I have neither given, received, nor toleraterted use." Getting back into technicalities, though, the tolerance of others' use should be delineated, since the 1st 2 items in the series are personal, while the tolerance is external -- effectively ruling out the use of a single series. This leads to a more verbose answer, which breaks it into 2 sentences:
I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid. I have not tolerated others' use of it either.
Still a bit awkward, though. Calling on another rule, that a "neither" doesn't require that a "nor" follow, one could also do the semi-colon thing:
I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid; neither have I tolerated others' use of it.
I actually find the "semi-colon thing" just demonstrated to be the most elegant -- with the added bonus of being completely correct, AFAIK. ---- Edit: Darn UBB. And why does it keep eliminating my hard returns between paragraphs?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
