1
  1. If I could neither eat nor drink, then I would certainly get sick soon.
  2. If I did neither eat nor drink, then I would certainly get sick soon.
  3. If I couldn’t either eat or drink, then I would certainly get sick soon.

I would like to know whether the above sentences are grammatically correct and what is the difference of their meaning.

  • 2
    "did neither eat nor drink" is probably technically correct, but it is very uncommonly used that way. Something like "If I neither ate nor drank" would be more common. – hairboat Feb 4 '14 at 15:55
  • @ Abby T. Miller, whenever, as a non native, I try not to make mistakes, or at least as few as posiible, I "technically" simply use "did”. Now I know how to use them. Thank you for the tip. – Lucian Sava Feb 5 '14 at 7:18
1

The first and the third one are identical in meaning:

If you would not be able to eat or drink, you would get sick soon.

The second one means something different: if you do not eat or drink might imply you might be able to, but for some reason you do not.

The difference between the first and the third sentence is that I prefer the first one. The "couldn't either/or" seems a bit more complex than the "could neither/nor". That said, both are correct, and I will not argue over tasts :)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.