View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
wowser
Joined: 14 Apr 2004 Location: Kyonggi do
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 10:56 pm Post subject: silly grammar question |
|
|
This seems so simple.....kind of like when you say a word like 'said' many times, after a while it doesn't sound correct....
I am having a disagreement with a co-worker. She was getting really bent out of shape over it.
The sentence in question is this: He can not walk or run.
My meaning is: 'He can't walk. He can't run'.
I think it is fine. My co-worker says it is 'He can not walk and run'.
I think that changes my meaning.
Maybe it is 'He can neither walk nor run'.
After I asked around a few friends we all started going a little insane....who is correct and why... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee

Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It means both, which has the potential to cause problems in English (but rarely does.) Some other languages make the distinction clearer. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
HydePark
Joined: 23 Aug 2006 Location: Korea
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Take a look at: http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/040.html
Quote: |
when a verb is negated by not or never, and is followed by a negative verb phrase (but not an entire clause), you can use either "or" or "nor": He will not permit the change or (or nor) even consider it. |
Thus, all are correct:
He cannot walk or run.
He cannot walk nor run.
He can neither walk nor run.
...since "He can't walk" is negative, and "run" is also a negative verb phrase (ie. something he "can't" do), both "or" and "nor" are correct. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In the first example (with 'or'), the poor guy is paralyzed. He can't walk and he can't run.
The second example would be clearer if you said, "Tom can't walk and chew gum at the same time." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|