0
BarbaraPA Posted 15 years ago
Grammar
Or or nor here
1. He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, or the means, to achieve it.
2. He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, nor the means to achieve it.
3. He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, nor the means, to achieve it.
The parenthetical use of "[ n]or the means" is intentional - the is a story about how someone helped with the plan and incidentally helped discover the money (= means) to make it happen.
My feeling is that if I stick to this bracketed commas around the "means" phrase, I keep "or." I could live with #2, although it puts the means and the plan on equal footing. I can't see how #3 is right.
What do you think?
2. He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, nor the means to achieve it.
3. He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, nor the means, to achieve it.
The parenthetical use of "[ n]or the means" is intentional - the is a story about how someone helped with the plan and incidentally helped discover the money (= means) to make it happen.
My feeling is that if I stick to this bracketed commas around the "means" phrase, I keep "or." I could live with #2, although it puts the means and the plan on equal footing. I can't see how #3 is right.
What do you think?
Top answer
Hi GG, Somehow to me neither #2 nor #3 sound correct.
- Hi GG, Somehow to me neither #2 nor #3 sound correct.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
8 Answers
0
0
I'm sorry, but I couldn't live with any of those if I were writing it. I would have to start all over again...which doesn't help your dilemma, sorry.
00
0
Oh, I dunno. Something like this, I suppose:
He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, much less the means to achieve it.
That may not be to your point, though.
He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, much less the means to achieve it.
That may not be to your point, though.
00
Grammar Geek1. He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, or the means, to achieve it.
2. He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, nor the means to achieve it.
3. He had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision]. What he did not have was a plan, nor the means, to
00
Grammar GeekHe had a vision: [blah blah, describing his vision].But he niether had a plan nor the means to achieve it.
00
I think one difficulty is that we don't "achieve" visions. What about:
1. He had a vision; but he had neither the plan nor the means to make it happen / realise it.
MrP
1. He had a vision; but he had neither the plan nor the means to make it happen / realise it.
MrP
00
Thanks all. I guess if you don't have a plan, de facto, you don't have the means to realize it.
My original question was all about the or/nor, but there will be some other changes. I think realize is a good choice.
The write-up is more about helping them develop the plan and less about the means, which is why I didn't want it to read as though they were equal factors.
My original question was all about the or/nor, but there will be some other changes. I think realize is a good choice.
The write-up is more about helping them develop the plan and less about the means, which is why I didn't want it to read as though they were equal factors.
0
Related Questions