"this, that and the other" vs."this, that and/or the other"

Question

(Please forgive crosspost in Legal English - not sure if this is categorised as a legal or grammatical query)

1) "this, that and the other"

vs

2) "this, that and/or the other"

Am I right in assuming that the first example speaks of three items (i.e. this, that, the other) and the second example speaks about either one, two or three items in any combination (i.e. this / that / the other / this, that / this, the other / that, the other / this, that, the other).

I am by no means a lawyer but I am very interested in interpretations of the above two examples. For instance, would using "or" iinstead of "and/or" in the second example make any difference in meaning? If not, which is the preferred method - if so, what is the difference in meaning? I have spent hours and hours for an explanation on this on Google, reading books, asking Professors and people with degrees with no success. Some legal resources I found suggest one avoid the "and/or" alltogether.

Regards,
Richard (South Africa)

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

Hello Richard, and welcome to English Forums.

Without doing the extensive research you have, my thoughts are as yours: and means all three, while and/or means any one, or any two, or all three. I would have thought that this was unarguable.

Since in my experience, and/or usually appears in logically formal (if not solely legalistic) writings, I am surprised at your remark that some legal resources avoid it. Could you tell us their explanation for this?

Itsonlyme · Answer

It really depends on what it is you are trying to say. For example:

I want this (apple), that (orange) and the other (banana).
----- This means that you want the apple, orange and banana, so you will end up with 3 fruit
.
I want this (apple), that (orange), or the other (banana)
-----This means you want the apple, the orange, or the banana. You end up with only 1 fruit.

I want this (apple), that (orange), and/or the other (banana).
------Here you can end up with the apple, orange and banana (3 fruit)......OR
you can end up with the apple /orange (2 fruit) or apple/banana (2 fruit) or orange/banana (2 fruit) ....OR just the apple (1 fruit), or just the orange (1 fruit), or just the banana (1 fruit).

What the 3rd sentence will do (and/or) is produce three types of possible outcomes and either one of them will be acceptable.

Hope that helps.

Anonymous · Answer

Dear Mr Micawber,

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer.

I consider myself an expert at doing Google searches and finding the most intricate information but this question had me totally and utterly stumped. I spent hours and hours searching in vain.

Unfortunately, the legal resource I had access to only gave the recommendation and not the reason. I suspect that there are quite a few legal texts that substitute commas in enire lists of items (of possibilities, eventualities, etc.) and this makes for very cumbersome reading, e.g. "in the event of lightning strike and/or bushfire and/or tornado..." (OK, bad example perhaps, but I'm not a lawyer!)

Strange thing is, I have subsequently had an inkling (mildly confirmed) that a list with "or" before the last item can ALSO mean any combination of items, just like "and/or", albeit not in common language but leaning on mathematic principles. Here's an article from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disjunction

---

In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics, a disjunction is an "or statement". For example "John skis or Sally swims" is a disjunction.

Note that in everyday language, use of the word "or" can sometimes mean "either, but not both" (e.g., "would you like tea or coffee?"). In logic, this is called an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_disjunction or "exclusive or" (xor). When used formally, "or" allows for both parts of the or statement (its disjuncts) to be true ("and/or"), therefore "or" is also called inclusive disjunction.

---

It would appear that, in the many examples of "or" and "and/or" usage in lists that I've seen feature in legal texts (and tried to make sense of - although I get the distinct feeling that many lawyers don't have a clue either!), one would use "or" in a list of items in the same way we believe "and/or" (any combination of items) is used BUT that the "and/or" is used when the item that follows it is a variant or falls under the same group (only a wild theory at this stage): e.g. "These include, but are not restricted to, utility and/or productivity software, games, office suites, anti-virus detection and/or filtering applications. At the same time, only two items in a list makes things simple for "and/or", e.g. "Eat and/or die" (a paradox...maybe just another bad example that proves the point)..

Again, I'm not a linguist, just trying to find a formula!

Kind regards,

Richard

Anonymous · Answer

Dear itsonlyme,

Thank you very much for your input! I really appreciate the time you've taken to explain!

Would you know whether this "and/or"-thing is a rule or based on a some sort of rule? I replied to the previous answer because I seem to have gathered from ready many, many legal texts that a comma-separated list ending with "or" has the same meaning (or implication) as your example no. 3 with the "and/or". has. Refer to the other reply for more info.

One last thing, I am not wrong in assuming that your example no. 3 holds for lists greater than three items, e.g. "When we go walk in the forest we might find mushrooms, berries, nuts, honey and/or seeds" is correct.

Kind regards and many thanks again for your help!

Richard (South Africa)

[My mother-tongue is German, I grew up speaking and studying German, English and Afrikaans (similar to Dutch), studied French for four years and currently learning Japanese - perhaps the reason why I get a bit confused every now and then? ;-) ]

Mister Micawber · Answer

Thanks very much for the Wikipedia Link, Richard. It takes me back to my first-year university logic class (non-elective for freshmen), in which I 'did not do well', let us say.

I doubt that inclusive disjunctions would be noticed (much less adhered to) by the general writer, even if the former were wearing red bikinis and riding ostriches. As an exercise in logic, I am in Yokohama or you are in South Africa offers an interesting choice of what is logically true, but in any other context it would mean just one of the terms or be meaningless, don't you think?

Well, it is certainly not an analysis that I am willing to submit myself to before penning a simple or or and/or, but if it leads eventually to an understanding of the etymology of the phrase, I wish you success-- and I'll be watching your thread.

With regard to degree of variance required to debar an and/or: I await the statistical analysis. I do like the simplicity of eat and/or die, which is quite Baudelairean.

"this, that and the other" vs."this, that and/or the other"

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions