0

Is the below sentence correct? This is the first time, I am seeing two neither in a sentence.

In the case of a constitutive relation, neither relatum precedes the other temporally, and neither can be present without the other.

  • 1
    I've mainly heard neither...., nor.... . And neither..., neither.... is a new thing I saw here for the first time. – user33000 Jun 16 '16 at 9:20
  • For more info check this dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/… – user33000 Jun 16 '16 at 9:25
  • @Sina but there is no two 'neither' in a sentence. – ARYF Jun 16 '16 at 9:34
  • I see. I would write the sentence this way:In the case of a constitutive relation, neither relatum precedes the other temporally, and neither one can be presented without the other. – user33000 Jun 16 '16 at 9:41
3

It's easy to see why you're confused: as a learner you see these two neithers and suspect that this is not some sort of neither ... neither construction, like neither ... nor, which no one has taught you.

But there is no such construction. This is simply two independent clauses joined with and; both clauses happen to begin with the quantifier neither. Parse it this way:

In the case of a constitutive relation [two things are true]:

neither relatum precedes the other temporally
and
neither [relatum] can be present without the other.

Neither means "untrue of both of the two following things". In both clauses the two 'things' are the two relata, so the first clause means

Relatum A does not precede Relatum B temporally AND Relatum B does not precede Relatum A temporally.

In the second clause, neither is 'fused' with its head, relatum; this clause means

Relatum A cannot be present without Relatum B AND Relatum B cannot be present without Relatum A.

| improve this answer | |
  • Excellent!!! answer. I never thought in this way. – ARYF Jun 17 '16 at 4:06
1

Yes that makes sense. I wouldn't even suggest any alternatives, I believe this is the most natural construction and has the best tone for the content.

Edit: You could alternatively use the following, but neither is really just a negative version of either anyway.

In the case of a constitutive relation, neither relatum precedes the other temporally nor can either be present without the other.

"nor" would not be appropriate because we need to make clear that there are two alternatives and that both are needed.

| improve this answer | |
  • Are you sure with neither...., neither .... construction? – user33000 Jun 16 '16 at 9:27
  • Yes I am. It makes a strong point that both parts conditions are necessary. I would perhaps remove the last comma, but either way the sentence is perfectly correct grammatically. – Daniel Porteous Jun 16 '16 at 9:29
  • 1
    Could you provide us with a source to explain it more? And is this American English? – user33000 Jun 16 '16 at 9:31
  • I'm afraid I don't have a source for this beyond being a native speaker. This is Australian English, which is probably closer to UK English. In this link you can see some examples of using neither...nor. You'll notice that each part isn't a full idea. The sentence in this question however has full ideas following each neither. It's an abstract concept to get the grasp of, but if I heard either my construction or the original one I wouldn't think it was weird. – Daniel Porteous Jun 16 '16 at 9:34
  • @DanielWesleyPorteous Provide the citation that states about this rule. – ARYF Jun 16 '16 at 9:35

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.