Grammar question: A and not B is OR A and not B are?

[Doubting Robert]

I have no problem with "The ball is red."

Ditto for "The ball and the box are red."

Also no problem with "The ball or the box is red."

But should it be "The ball and not the box is red"?

Or should it be "The ball and not the box are red"?

[Geek Mecha]

Since only one of the objects is red, I'd use "but not" instead of "and not".

But as for your question, your choice of is or are has to modify the quantity of the item with the quality in question. Since both ball and box are singular in that only one is red, you would use is.

If it helps, imagine the sentence without the "and not ___" segment. You wouldn't say, "The ball are not red", so you also wouldn't say, "The ball and not the box are red."

[Little Nemo]

I believe "A and not B is" is correct. The pair form a single unit so they're treated as if they were one thing. Like "Rock and roll is here to stay."

But it's a gray area. It depends on whether you're treating them as a single item or two separate items that have a common characteristic. "A and not B" would work as a single item because it's referring to the relationship between A and B. But "The ball and the box are red" would be correct because the ball and the box have individual identities.

[Onomatopoeia]

Originally Posted by Doubting Robert

But should it be "The ball and not the box is red"?

Or should it be "The ball and not the box are red"?

It is "The ball and not the box is red."

[Jragon]

To me it seems like it should be:

The ball, but not the box, is red.

"And" doesn't really make sense here to me. (though honestly, I'd probably restructure it to "The ball is red, though the box isn't" or something because no matter what you do it sounds kind of awkward to me).

[Doubting Robert]

Thank you one and all.

Robert

[Little Nemo]

Upon reading other posts, I'm rethinking this. The "A and not B" made me think of this as a logical expression. But the examples given of balls and boxes are just normal English.

In routine usage, the subject of "The ball and not the box is red" would be "The ball". "And not the box" is an adjective clause.

[greenslime1951]

I see this all the time in my work: a poorly constructed sentence leads to grammatical confusion.

Since the point of the sentence is that the box is not the same color as the ball, why not say: "The ball is red, but the box is not"? Problem solved.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Jragon

To me it seems like it should be:

The ball, but not the box, is red.

"And" doesn't really make sense here to me. (though honestly, I'd probably restructure it to "The ball is red, though the box isn't" or something because no matter what you do it sounds kind of awkward to me).

I can see using "and" is you're trying to point out a direct comparison between A and B.

For example:
"Why does Smith's lawyer get to present his summation after Jones' lawyer?"
"Smith and not Jones is the plaintiff."

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I see this all the time in my work: a poorly constructed sentence leads to grammatical confusion.

Since the point of the sentence is that the box is not the same color as the ball, why not say: "The ball is red, but the box is not"?Problem solved.

I've always disagreed with this argument. If a sentence seems confusing, then learn what the rules are and construct it correctly. Avoiding a sentence because you're not sure how to construct it properly is mental laziness.

[Mosier]

It depends on what your definition of is is.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Mosier

It depends on what your definition of is is.

You know, a bunch of vowels, like as, es, os, and us.

[Senegoid]

These sorts of questions, with odd grammatical constructions like this, don't just come up in the run-of-the-mill bad writing. It also comes up on logic classes, where one of the topics is to translate symbolic logic propositions to a plain-english sentence -- or even more so, to translate a plain-english sentence to a symbolic logic proposition so you can manipulate it was logical techniques. (Rather similar to translating word problems into an algebraic equation.)

BTW, one of the little details we learned was that, for this purpose, the words "and" and "but" are completely synonymous, and are just two different "stylistic variants" of the same meaning. "A and B" is synonymous with "A but B", although the more common real-life usage is "A but not B", which is identical to "A and not B".

As for the statement "The ball and not the box is red" -- I parse that as having the verb "is" with the subject being only "The ball" rather than "The ball and not the box". I'm not parsing the part "and not the box" as being part of the subject. So by that thinking, "is" is right.

Is not that what the meaning of is is?

ETA: The really shitty problem is the ambiguous (in English grammer) form "All A is/are not B" --
Does that mean every instance of A fails to be B (that is, NO A is B)? Or does it mean "It is not the case that all A are B", i.e., "Some A are not B" or "Not all A are B"? As I've heard it explained, this bad locution comes about from the Latin, where the grammar is not thus ambiguous.

[Senegoid]

(Missed edit window.)

Yeah, Yeah, I see I spelled grammar wrong in one spot. Not that I usually nit-pick my own spelling like this if I miss the edit window, but given the nature of the topic, I guess I should.

[Dr. dB]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

"All A is/are not B" --...every instance of A fails to be B (that is, NO A is B)...

That first analysis appears, to me, to be the correct one. As the statement stands, all the ambiguity stems from the slightly-klutzy way the singular/plural thing is handled, which, consequently, has to be filtered-out to get to the underlying logic diagram.

Try this excessively-verbose, pedantic, etc., re-parse:

"Everything which is of the set A (whether A consists of a single entity or multiple entities), is not B."

Or, the other extreme, boiled-down to: "A is not B."

AFAIK, the "all" is unnecessary to the "equation", since "all" of a named set is presumed in the very use of the name, whether its contents be singular or plural, unless the statement itself possesses some expression or other specifically calling for "less-than-A" or a "subset-of-B"...

[Inner Stickler]

Of the two choices you listed, the correct answer is, "The ball and not the box is red." Which can also be punctuated, "The ball, and not the box, is red." but that's neither here nor there. There are, of course, other ways of framing the statement but without knowing some larger context, the best anyone can offer is their opinion.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

BTW, one of the little details we learned was that, for this purpose, the words "and" and "but" are completely synonymous, and are just two different "stylistic variants" of the same meaning. "A and B" is synonymous with "A but B", although the more common real-life usage is "A but not B", which is identical to "A and not B".

I'd disagree, at least as far as real-life usage goes.

Consider these examples:
"Why does Smith's lawyer get to present his summation after Jones' lawyer?"
"Smith and not Jones is the plaintiff."

"Why does Smith's lawyer get to present his summation after Brown's lawyer this week when Jones' lawyer had to present his summation before Brown's lawyer last week?"
"Smith but not Jones is the plaintiff."

In the first pair of sentences, the "and" is used to link Smith and Jones - they're in a situation where only one of them can be first and by being first, they preclude the possibility of the other being first. In the second pair of sentences, the "but" compares the situations of Smith and Jones, but they're not linked - both Smith and Jones could hypothetically have been first (or last).

[Dr. dB]

This is one of those instances where the old Associated Press and UPI Style Guides from my Broadcast Journalism days can trump any "official" answer from the English Department. Some posters have already come close, but I'm pretty sure if this sentence were to show up on a studio teleprompter, it would read,

"The ball, and not the box, is red."

Not sure whether that's strictly-perfect the-king's-, the-queen's-, the President's or a linguistics-professor's-"modern English punctuation" or not - I'm no English maven, just a half-decent "word-engineer" - but I know for certain that a certain amount of technically-"extraneous" punctuation can instantly clarify opaque language, and can readily make reading even the most oddly-worded sentences, silently or aloud, simplicity itself.

That said, it's interesting that the phraseology is decidedly late-Victorian-era... and, back in that era, they'd very likely have punctuated it exactly as above....

ETA: Ha! Joke's on me! While I was being all pedantic and perfectionist, Stickler pretty cogently nailed it on the head...

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

The "A and not B" made me think of this as a logical expression.

I have come across this in a COBOL programme code: "IF NOT (NOT A AND NOT B)". It took me a while to work out what it meant.

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by Floater

I have come across this in a COBOL programme code: "IF NOT (NOT A AND NOT B)". It took me a while to work out what it meant.

Gogo gadget De Morgan's law!

ETA: In all seriousness, I have done stuff that's technically reducible for readability. I don't think this case ever could be, but sometimes the logic is a lot clearer, even in the presence of a comment, if you write slightly more verbose logical expressions even if they're technically equivalent to something else.

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by Floater

I have come across this in a COBOL programme code: "IF NOT (NOT A AND NOT B)". It took me a while to work out what it meant.

That's just:
IF ( A OR B )
ain't it?

_{saith De Morgan}

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

That's just:
IF ( A OR B )
ain't it?

_{saith De Morgan}

Yes, it is and to this day I wonder why the person who had written the code chose to write it the way he did.

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by Floater

Yes, it is and to this day I wonder why the person who had written the code chose to write it the way he did.

My guess? He originally wrote !A and !B, realized he was getting the opposite result as intended and wrote !(!A and !B), without realizing that's really just A or B.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Floater

Yes, it is and to this day I wonder why the person who had written the code chose to write it the way he did.

I assume the OR's not exclusive?

[dstarfire]

Nemo hit this one right on the head.

"The ball and not the box" is most commonly used when there's an expectation that the ball and the box are the same (usually because somebody has mistakenly stated so).

Otherwise, "the ball but not the box" would be used where there's no prior expectation.

[Indistinguishable]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I assume the OR's not exclusive?

In programming, one typically has both inclusive and exclusive OR operators, but it's the inclusive one that's usually called "OR", and the exclusive one is instead called "XOR".

The De Morgan dual of "AND", incidentally, is inclusive OR; that is, NOT((NOT A) AND (NOT B)) does indeed translate to A OR B with inclusive OR. The De Morgan dual of XOR is the negation of XOR, sometimes called XNOR.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

I've always disagreed with this argument. If a sentence seems confusing, then learn what the rules are and construct it correctly. Avoiding a sentence because you're not sure how to construct it properly is mental laziness.

While I agree that actually knowing the rules is valuable, this does serve as a helpful rule of thumb. If you are having to use esoteric grammar rules, you are likely using a rather esoteric construction. It is likely that said construction will thus be perceived as awkward, whether this is because it is uncommon, or if it is uncommon because it is awkward.

While the best case would be to learn the rule, then decide on stylistic concerns, it isn't really lazy if the need for the esoteric rule alerts you to the awkwardness of your statement.

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by Floater

Yes, it is and to this day I wonder why the person who had written the code chose to write it the way he did.

Was there other convoluted code in the program? Could the code have been generated by some kind of automated code generator?

I'm thinking of Ratfor, which took an enhanced version of Fortran source code as its input (which Fortran compilers of the day could not compile), and translated it into proper Fortran that could be compiled. It produced lots of silly stuff like this.

For example, the source construct:
IF ( some condition) THEN
stuff stuff stuff
ENDIF

got translated to:
IF ( .NOT. (some condition) ) GOTO 500
stuff stuff stuff
500 CONTINUE

If you had complicated conditional expressions, it could get real weird.

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by Indistinguishable

In programming, one typically has both inclusive and exclusive OR operators, but it's the inclusive one that's usually called "OR", and the exclusive one is instead called "XOR".

The De Morgan dual of "AND", incidentally, is inclusive OR; that is, NOT((NOT A) AND (NOT B)) does indeed translate to A OR B with inclusive OR. The De Morgan dual of XOR is the negation of XOR, sometimes called XNOR.

The negation of XOR is commonly called EQV. Is XNOR just the same as that?

"OR" and "AND" may not have the same meanings in "plain english" as they do in logic and programming. In particular, OR in everyday usage is often understood to mean exclusive or, as in:
"I will go to the movie or I will go to the opera." -- That seems to mean: will go to either the movie or the opera (but not both). In law, this is the usual meaning. If you mean "A or B or both", you need to SAY (or write) "A or B or both".

[Indistinguishable]

Yes, XNOR is the same as EQV.

Actually, what I should say is this:

The De Morgan dual of n-ary XOR is the (n + 1)-ary negation of XOR. When n is odd, this is just n-ary XOR itself (which comes out true just in case an odd number of its inputs are true). When n is even, this is the negation of n-ary XOR, sometimes called n-ary XNOR (which comes out true just in case an even number of its inputs are true).

In the particular case where n = 2, we have binary XNOR, which is equivalent to binary EQV. (It comes out true just in case its two inputs are equal).

Also, the assertion is also made that English "OR" by default means "exclusive OR", but this does not seem supported by the examples typically used.

For example, if you told me "I will go to the movies or I will go to the opera", and then you happened to go to both, I would not ordinarily consider you to have lied, even if the implicature had been that you would go to only one.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

Was there other convoluted code in the program? Could the code have been generated by some kind of automated code generator?

I have no idea, but I don't think so. It seems it was just his style of coding.

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by greenslime1951

I see this all the time in my work: a poorly constructed sentence leads to grammatical confusion.

Since the point of the sentence is that the box is not the same color as the ball, why not say: "The ball is red, but the box is not"? Problem solved.

Because the principle of grammar is that you can say anything you want and still make it grammatically correct. It is never necessary to reword a sentence in order to apply a grammatical rule to it.

Grammar is not the same as Syntax. It is a syntax rule, for example, that you cannot end a sentence with a preposition. That has nothing to do with grammar, and a sentence can be grammatically correct, even if it ends with a preposition. Grammar only requires that persons, genders, tenses, etc, are all consistent throughout the sentence.

Without changing the sentence, the problem is easily solved by using a singular verb when there is a singular subject, which is "the ball".

[Floater]

Originally Posted by jtur88

It is a syntax rule, for example, that you cannot end a sentence with a preposition.

That's a fallacy that many people have problems with.

[Inner Stickler]

It's a prescription that didn't even appear until the 1700s with which to start.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Floater

That's a fallacy that many people have problems with.

A foolish idea that originated from scholars trying to apply the rules of Latin to the English language.

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

A foolish idea that originated from scholars trying to apply the rules of Latin to the English language.

You're talking about the rule that you should never use a preposition to end a sentence with, right?

_{Hey! I'm legit! I didn't end use a preposition to end the above sentence with!}

Similarly, the admonition not to ever split an infinitive comes from overly purist English teachers trying to prissily apply Latin grammar. In Latin of course, and other languages derived therefrom, you can't split an infinitive because it's all one word! In English, that space in the middle of an infinitive is often the most natural-sounding place to easily stick a modifier!

And, now let's talk about double negatives. In English, you shouldn't never use double negatives. I'll go along so far as to agree it's usually a lousy idea, producing awkward sentences. But why? My 8th grade teacher gave a reason that I think was just wrong: LOGIC! Two negatives make a positive! Straight from Algebra or something! "You shouldn't never use a double negative" means you should ALWAYS use a double negative!

Even then, I called baloney. Two negatives can just as well be even MORE negative! (Hey, that's Algebra too.) A double negative might be used as a more intensive negative. Besides, who ever said language is logical? Double negatives were quite acceptable in the limited French that I learned.

[guizot]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Grammar only requires that persons, genders, tenses, etc, are all consistent throughout the sentence.

Huh? Do you mean that grammar is only about consistency? Which meaning of "grammar" excludes syntax, and where did you find it?

Grammar is fundamentally just a very intricate system of conventions. Logic--something very different from convention---often can't explain grammar (though it sometimes is helpful for keeping track of some of the conventions of grammar). It's silly to think that you can come to a definite decision about an ambiguous grammatical point by sheer dint of logic.

This is why, for example, a word like family is singular in the U.S. and plural in Britain. That's simply a grammatical convention, and can't be explained, justified or better understood by way of formal logic.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

And, now let's talk about double negatives. In English, you shouldn't never use double negatives. I'll go along so far as to agree it's usually a lousy idea, producing awkward sentences. But why? My 8th grade teacher gave a reason that I think was just wrong: LOGIC! Two negatives make a positive! Straight from Algebra or something! "You shouldn't never use a double negative" means you should ALWAYS use a double negative!

Even then, I called baloney. Two negatives can just as well be even MORE negative! (Hey, that's Algebra too.) A double negative might be used as a more intensive negative. Besides, who ever said language is logical? Double negatives were quite acceptable in the limited French that I learned.

Exactly. Double negatives are wrong in English. But they're normal and acceptable in Spanish.

However, some misguided language purist applying the rules of English to Spanish might foolishly insist that no Spanish speaker use a double negative. It's certainly possible to construct Spanish sentences without double negatives. But it's unnecessary and such a rule would prohibit plenty of grammatically correct Spanish sentences.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

A foolish idea that originated from scholars trying to apply the rules of Latin to the English language.

The way I see it is that rules like this do not originate from scholars but from people with a limited knowledge who want to set things in an orderly manner to make them fit within their own narrow minds.

Besides, I don't know Latin, but if I understand correctly word order doesn't matter, so wouldn't this rule be erroneous anyway?

Originally Posted by Senegoid

Two negatives make a positive!

But two positives do not make a negative.

Yeah, right.

[pulykamell]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Exactly. Double negatives are wrong in English. But they're normal and acceptable in Spanish.

However, some misguided language purist applying the rules of English to Spanish might foolishly insist that no Spanish speaker use a double negative. It's certainly possible to construct Spanish sentences without double negatives. But it's unnecessary and such a rule would prohibit plenty of grammatically correct Spanish sentences.

Same thing with Polish (and other Slavic languages). Negative agreement/concord is the norm, so you have sentences that, literally translated, come out to "I never didn't have nothing" when formal English would have "I never had anything." (Double/multiple negatives show up routinely in various dialects of English, too.) Language is not math or logic.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by Floater

Besides, I don't know Latin, but if I understand correctly word order doesn't matter, so wouldn't this rule be erroneous anyway?

My understanding is that not ending a sentence in a preposition is pretty much the only rule of word order in Latin. I don't know why; I'm not a Latin speaker either.

As Senegoid pointed out, the rule on not splitting infinitives is easier to explain; it's impossible to do in Latin because infinitives are a single word. In English, infinitives are two words but Latin-influenced scholars invented a rule that if it couldn't be done in Latin, it shouldn't be done in English.

[Floater]

After I had written my question I suddenly remembered the phrase "Vade me cum", "Go with me", so obviously there is no such rule.

[OldGuy]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

Similarly, the admonition not to ever split an infinitive comes from overly purist English teachers trying to prissily apply Latin grammar. In Latin of course, and other languages derived therefrom, you can't split an infinitive because it's all one word! In English, that space in the middle of an infinitive is often the most natural-sounding place to easily stick a modifier!

I guess that means no one ever said whatever the equivalent of "Laud f*cking are" is in Latin?

[OldGuy]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Grammar is not the same as Syntax. It is a syntax rule, for example, that you cannot end a sentence with a preposition.

When the boy's father came into his room at bed time carrying a book about kangaroos, the little boy said "Daddy, why'd you bring that book I didn't want to be read to from about Down Under up for?"

(And yes I realize "Down Under" is really a noun in that construction.)

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by OldGuy

When the boy's father came into his room at bed time carrying a book about kangaroos, the little boy said "Daddy, why'd you bring that book I didn't want to be read to from about Down Under up for?"

(And yes I realize "Down Under" is really a noun in that construction.)

A variation without the questionable "Down Under" construct:
Daddy, what did you bring the book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?

Runner-up: I've got to run now, and go home to put what I'm going out in on.

(As best I can recall, I got these from Herb Caen's column in the S. F. Chron, 30-some years ago.)

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

Upon reading other posts, I'm rethinking this. The "A and not B" made me think of this as a logical expression. But the examples given of balls and boxes are just normal English.

In routine usage, the subject of "The ball and not the box is red" would be "The ball". "And not the box" is an adjective clause.

bingo

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by jtur88

It is a syntax rule, for example, that you cannot end a sentence with a preposition.

That is a rule up with which I will not put.

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by guizot

This is why, for example, a word like family is singular in the U.S. and plural in Britain. That's simply a grammatical convention, and can't be explained, justified or better understood by way of formal logic.

That's because those Brits are just plain smarter than we are. At least, they're more consistent.

We say "IBM wants to sell us services."

But then we go on to say,

"They want to start with a 1-year contract."

Well, are they they, or is it it? We silly Yanks just can't make up our minds.

[Learjeff]

Originally Posted by Senegoid

Daddy, what did you bring the book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?

Runner-up: I've got to run now, and go home to put what I'm going out in on.

Those are a hoot! (Oops, those are hoots.)

This reminds me of the old saw about the professor lecturing in German, ending his lecture with a long list of verbs. Or was that Yoda?

[Senegoid]

Originally Posted by Learjeff

Those are a hoot! (Oops, those are hoots.)

Depending on their total hootworthiness. The two examples together could add up to one hoot, or they could each independently be an individual hoot, for a total of two hoots.

If one is easily amused, then I suppose each terminal preposition alone is worth a hoot. If I've counted aright, that gives us 8 hoots in those two examples.

If Johnny has 8 hoots and he gives a hoot, how many hoots does Johnny have left? Are hoots conserved?