# Either = "one or the other" and "both"



## Malakias

I am bothered by the ambiguity of the word "either". I have always been taught that "either" is used when there are two things and we like to refer to only one of them. However, I just found out that "either" can be used also to mean "both" (yes, I know that "both" is used with plural noun and "either" with singular noun, but I am just talking about the conceptual meaning), and I just cannot grasp this idea.
The dictionary of this forum gives the following examples:

one or the other of two: You may sit at either end of the table.
each of two; the one and the other: There are trees on either side of the river.
If we analyze the logical structure of above sentences, there is really nothing that differentiates them. You should just know the meaning from the context. But I say it is not possible always.
In the first example, it might seem obvious that one person can sit only at one place. But what if "you" refers to two persons; how do you know if they are advised to sit at separate ends, or both at the same end? Yes, I know that "may" implies free choice and that is why this is more likely understood as "you may freely choose at which end you like to sit, whatever". But what if this was a strict command for a group of people: "You must sit at either end of the table!".
Now, this could mean that both ends need to be populated, or everybody must sit at one end.

And what about the other example: At first glance it does not make sense to make such a statement that there are trees on either one or the other side of the river, and that is why it is understood as "there are trees on both sides of the river".
But what if somebody is trying to describe a landscape, and remembers that there are trees only on one side of the river but is not sure which side. So, in that case it would make perfect sense to use this same sentence, but the meaning of "either" is "one or the other".

So, what is the exact question here? I do not know really. I was just hoping that somebody could make some sense out of this. Maybe we could make a decision that "either" cannot mean "both", and wipe that stupid definition from dictionaries, eh?


----------



## Cenzontle

I think your last sentence is correct:  "either" meaning "both" is old-fashioned or poetic, and dictionaries would do us a service by marking it "archaic".
Dictionaries such as the _Oxford English Dictionary_ like to give the date of *first* documentation for words and their meanings,
but it is a little more difficult to give the date of *last* documentation for a dying word.
I would place "either = both" in the early 20th century.


----------



## kentix

The basic answer to your questions is that when there is a better way to something, say it that way.


Malakias said:


> But what if this was a strict command for a group of people: "You must sit at either end of the table!".


_You must sit at opposite ends of the table!
_


Malakias said:


> But what if somebody is trying to describe a landscape, and remembers that there are trees only on one side of the river but is not sure which side. So, in that case it would make perfect sense to use this same sentence ["There are trees on either side of the river."], but the meaning of "either" is "one or the other".


No, that would not make perfect sense. It never means that in that context. And you gave the answer already in your question.
_There are trees on (only) one side of the river.
_
If you know which side, you can specify it.
_-- There are trees on the left side of the river.
-- There are trees on the west side of the river._

If there's a choice to be made - either = one or the other
If it's a description of an existing state - either = both instances

_-- You must sit at either end of the table -_ it's not a choice and it's not a description, therefore it's the wrong word to use
_-- There are trees on either side of the river._ - it's a description, it means both instances

_-- There is a store at either end of the street [description]. You can go buy a Coke at either store, whichever you prefer [choice].
_


----------



## Malakias

Cenzontle, thank you for the sympathy. Kentix, thank you for your explanations. It makes some sense now.
I should, however, add the example that confused me in the first place, and I am still not ready to accept it as an explicit expression.
------------------------------------
*Transition band width for 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz NR for 15 kHz SCS: *
5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to either side
10 MHz carrier: 320 kHz to either side
15 MHz carrier: 390 kHz to either side
20 MHz carrier: 460 kHz to either side
------------------------------------
I first assumed that it means "one or the other" side but later found out that it means both sides.
There is no textual context so you cannot really say whether there is a description or a choice involved.
Actually, knowing the background, in this case the side could be selected so it could just as well be a choice.
So, how can you know that "either" here means "both"?
Is this just a bad use of an archaic word in attempt to sound more formal?


----------



## PaulQ

Malakias said:


> Is this just a bad use of an archaic word in attempt to sound more formal?


I cannot agree that "either" in the sense of "both" is 'archaic'. " Kentix in #3 has shown that it is not.

Either has more the meaning of "whichever you choose"


To be able to say "Take either apple", there must be two apples and you may take whichever you choose.
To be able to say "There are trees on either side of the river" there must be two sides and you can choose the left or right bank and there will be trees.


----------



## Malakias

PaulQ said:


> Either has more the meaning of "whichever you choose"
> 
> To be able to say "Take either apple", there must be two apples and you may take whichever you choose.
> To be able to say "There are trees on either side of the river" there must be two sides and you can choose the left or right bank and there will be trees.


Now, this just got me more confused. You are saying that if there are two sides and you can choose whichever and this makes it to mean "both"?
What about the example 1 in my first post: You may sit at either end of the table.
There are two ends of the table and you can choose whichever, but it does not mean both ends.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

"There are trees on either side of the river." can be rephrased "There are trees on both sides of the river." 
"You must sit at either end of the table." means "You cannot sit anywhere else." (at e.g. the middle of the table or elsewhere). (In My Opinion.)


----------



## kentix

_*Transition band width for 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz NR for 15 kHz SCS: *
5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to either side

There is no textual context so you cannot really say whether there is a description or a choice involved.
_
This is a description. Maybe it takes a certain amount of knowledge about the radio spectrum to understand it's a description. It's describing the shape (amount, width) of the radio spectrum used. This first case uses radio spectrum centered at 5 MHz. It extends to each side by 250 KHz. So the range of frequencies (the bandwidth) is 500KHz. It goes from 4.750 MHz to 5.250 MHz.

You can think of 5 MHz as a line down the center of the river and the 250 KHz as the distance to the riverbanks on either side. A river can't have only one side.


----------



## JulianStuart

Indeed: either is a strange word in English.  Sometimes it means one of two, sometimes it means two of two.  Even in context it may remain ambiguous.  

It would be nice if we could wave a magic wand over everyone who speaks English to force them to say _each_ or _both_ when that is the meaning, and reserve "either" for the meaning of one or the other. It won't happen, though.


----------



## ain'ttranslationfun?

Re your title, Malakias, I think you meant not "simultaneously", but..."_either_", no?


----------



## sdgraham

We just had a similar discussion..
"either of you" vs. "both of you"


----------



## Cagey

Malakias said:


> I should, however, add the example that confused me in the first place, and I am still not ready to accept it as an explicit expression.
> ------------------------------------
> *Transition band width for 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz NR for 15 kHz SCS: *
> 5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to either side


I think this is a matter of technical jargon, and I would expect that people familiar with the field to understand what 'either' means in this particular context.  The meanings of technical terms generally have to be fixed. 

This is apart from the way 'either' is used in everyday speech, where the meaning is more flexible, but is understood (once more) from the context.


----------



## PaulQ

Malakias said:


> You are saying that if there are two sides and you can choose whichever and this makes it to mean "both"?


No. I am not saying that.  Either implies that there are two of something.


> What about the example 1 in my first post: You may sit at either end of the table.


As you are singular - there is only one "you" - it would be quite impossible for you to sit at both ends at the same time, wouldn't it?


> There are two ends of the table and you can choose whichever, but it does not mean both ends.


I think you are making this difficult for yourself. You can sit at whichever of the two ends you choose. You cannot sit at *both *simultaneously... If you can understand this, I think you might understand "either".

You may sit at either end of the table (We understand that a table has two ends) = you may sit at whichever end you choose. = you may sit at whichever of the two ends you choose.


----------



## Radioh

I understand Malakias's frustration towards the word. It's a painful word for me too but I always take it to mean "one of the two", anyway. What you mean is what your listener thinks it means, ey? I have to say, though, that I only learnt that the word also means "both" when I looked it up in dictionaries and from my experience, the context rarely makes it clear in which sense the word is used.


PaulQ said:


> ...I think you are making this difficult for yourself. You can sit at whichever of the two ends you choose. You cannot sit at *both *simultaneously... If you can understand this, I think you might understand "either".
> 
> You may sit at either end of the table (We understand that a table has two ends) = you may sit at whichever end you choose. = you may sit at whichever of the two ends you choose.



what about the plural you? Say, you and your friend are asked to sit at either end of the table. Would you two sit together at one end then? From what I gather so far, native speakers don't seem to have much problem with the word as us learners do.


----------



## JulianStuart

Radioh said:


> Say, you and your friend are asked to sit at either end of the table. Would you two sit together at one end then? From what I gather so far, native speakers don't seem to have much problem with the word as us learners do.


 That example is ambiguous even to native speakers.


----------



## sdgraham

Radioh said:


> what about the plural you? Say, you and your friend are asked to sit at either end of the table. Would you two sit together at one end then?





JulianStuart said:


> That example is ambiguous even to native speakers.



If one tries hard enough, including omitting any context whatsoever, one can contrive an ambiguity with just about any expression.

In other words, how many settings were at each end of the table?


----------



## JulianStuart

One setting at each (either? ) end or two settings at each end, for example? Context and logic


----------



## Malakias

PaulQ said:


> As you are singular - there is only one "you" - it would be quite impossible for you to sit at both ends at the same time, wouldn't it?


I already explained in my first post that "you" can be plural.
Anyway, I do not want to argue about this particular example anymore, because kentix already gave quite a good logical definition for the interpretation of "either": if it is _description_ then it means "both", but if there is a possible choice involved, then it is "one or the other".

I wanted to only point out that your earlier definition ("whichever you choose") only confused this issue more, because that basically contradicts the rule that kentix defined. But still, I appreciate your attempt to help.


----------



## Malakias

kentix said:


> This is a description. Maybe it takes a certain amount of knowledge about the radio spectrum to understand it's a description. It's describing the shape (amount, width) of the radio spectrum used. This first case uses radio spectrum centered at 5 MHz. It extends to each side by 250 KHz. So the range of frequencies (the bandwidth) is 500KHz. It goes from 4.750 MHz to 5.250 MHz.
> You can think of 5 MHz as a line down the center of the river and the 250 KHz as the distance to the riverbanks on either side. A river can't have only one side.





Cagey said:


> I think this is a matter of technical jargon, and I would expect that people familiar with the field to understand what 'either' means in this particular context.  The meanings of technical terms generally have to be fixed.
> This is apart from the way 'either' is used in everyday speech, where the meaning is more flexible, but is understood (once more) from the context.


Once again, I appreciate your help, but unfortunately you are on the wrong track.
I am a technical expert of this area, and I have more than the required knowledge, and I can also ensure you that "either" is not some kind of jargon in this context either.
If you really want to know, this table is related to a study item in a proposal to apply 5G in older 4G network. With 5G the occupied bandwidth is little bit increased by additional subcarriers, and the table basically describes how much margin there is left within the total allocated bandwidth.
However, although this is a "description", it does not mean that there could not be a choice involved.
Additional subcarriers could be placed either symmetrically on both sides, or asymmetrically only on one side.
This table does not define the addition of subcarriers. That is why it is not possible to say, only based on this table, whether the carriers are on both or only on one side. The required information was included in another table, where I later found out that in this table "either" means "both". But I was first confused because of the wording.

So, I was not asking for help to interpret this table. I was only trying to point out that in this case it would be rather difficult to guess whether "either" here means "both" or "one or the other".


----------



## PaulQ

Malakias said:


> or asymmetrically only on one side.


in which case it would be "on the higher/lower side."


----------



## Malakias

PaulQ said:


> in which case it would be "on the higher/lower side."


So, are you saying that if a native speaker of English would write that table, he/she would never ever use "to either side" to mean "to whichever side you like to choose"?


----------



## PaulQ

You need to read more carefully.


----------



## Malakias

PaulQ said:


> You need to read more carefully.


Ok, I read carefully: "to either side". So there are three words: "to", "either" and "side". I have now read that very carefully, and I still am not sure whether it could sometimes mean "both" and sometimes "one or the other".
So, please, can you just verify: If a native English speaker would write "to either side" to some table, with no other text, would it be possible that he/she means "to one or the other side", or is it 100% sure that the meaning is always "to both sides" ?


----------



## PaulQ

You have been told that "on either side" is context dependent and you give no context.

"You can put the chair (singular) on either side of the table" (note the choice implied by "can") = you can put the chair on whichever side of the table you choose.
"Please put the chairs either side of the table" (note the imperative and lack of choice.)  -> this sentence is only _potentially _ambiguous, but in practice it is not - if you were not bothered which side of the table the chairs were, you would emphasise "either"; if you meant both, you would not emphasise "either" and, in practice, in this latter case, you would not use either, you would use "this/that/both/the left/the right" etc. 

To give some semblance of logic to the above,
"Please put the chairs *on* either side of the table"  - "on either side" is an adverbial modifying "put": this, together with the imperative and the context and the intonation, creates the meaning of "both".
"You can put the chairs either side of the table" -> "either" is an adjective modifying "side" (Cf. "Take either apple." -> "Take whichever apple you choose.")


Malakias said:


> 5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz *to either side*


This is also adverbial - I have no idea which verb it modifies, but it does. It therefore implies "both"

The difficulty arises when the "on" is dropped and this is where context, the verb, the verb form, and, if available, the intonation, creates the meaning of "both".


----------



## kentix

_


PaulQ said:



			I have no idea which verb it modifies
		
Click to expand...

_Expanding the implicit meaning:
_
The band is centered at 5 Mhz and *extends* 250 KHz on either side_


----------



## PaulQ

Thanks, my brain was seizing. 

_A: “The band is centered at 5 Mhz and *extends* 250 KHz on either side_ “
B: So it could be on the higher side?
A: “Yes.”
B: “… and it could be on the lower side…?”
A: “Yes.”
B: “So it doesn’t matter which side?”
A: “No.”
B: “So either means it can be on both?”
A: “No it means it can be on *one side or the other.*"
B: "But I can choose either?"
A: "Yes."

A: “You can have either apple.”
B: “Can I have this one?”
A: “Yes.”
B:  “Can I have that one?”
A: “Yes.”
B: “So either means I can have both?”
A: “No it means that you can have *one apple or the other.”*


----------



## kentix

I'll modify your gripping dialogue this way:

The key word is centered, which means there *has to be* something on both sides, otherwise it can't be in the center. The information given is a description of the center point and how far the sides go out. That's not explained explicitly here (5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to either side) but that's where they make the assumption that anybody reading this kind of technical information would already understand that basic concept.

_A: “The band is centered at 5 Mhz and *extends* 250 KHz on either side of the center line._ “
B: So it extends 250 KHz on the higher side?
A: “Yes.”
B: “… and it also extends 250 KHz on the lower side…?”
A: “Yes.”


fc is the 5 MHz
the "distance" from fc to f1 and fc to f2 is 250 KHz (but in opposite directions)


----------



## Malakias

kentix said:


> Expanding the implicit meaning:
> _The band is centered at 5 Mhz and *extends* 250 KHz on either side_



NOOOOOOO!!!!!  I already told you that you are on the wrong track!
The situation is not at all like you had explained: the table does not define bandwith extension!
And there is no centering involved!
Please, just stop trying to explain it in technical terms!

The table defines transition bandwidth that is needed (for filtering) when additional subcarriers are used, and the whole carrier could be non-centered, so there is nothing which says that this has to apply similarly to both sides!!!

There is no explicit expression that could be used to expand the meaning.
There is just this defined transition band that exists either on ONLY one side, or it can be on both sides. But there is a BIG DIFFERENCE in cases where there is only one side used or both sides. So, it is not just the same to have them on both sides!

Besides, the wording was "to either side" not "on either side".


----------



## Malakias

PaulQ said:


> You have been told that "on either side" is context dependent and you give no context.


EXACTLY!!! That is the problem here: there is no verbal context involved that would give any hint for the interpretation.
Only possibility to know the meaning is to calculate it from the values that were given in another table, but there is no point to start discussing on that here.
Besides, it was "to either side", not "on either side".


----------



## Malakias

Please, can you just verify: If a native English speaker would write "to either side" to some table, with *no explicit verbal context involved* AND it makes a significant difference whether only one side or both sides are used (however, in case of only one side is used, it does not matter which side so that is why the side must not be explicitly defined), would it be possible that he/she means "to one or the other side", or is it 100% sure that the meaning is always "to both sides" ?


----------



## PaulQ

Malakias said:


> If a native English speaker would write wrote/were to write "to either side" of some table, with *no explicit verbal context involved*


Nothing makes any sense in English without context. This is *incredibly *important. I am not avoiding answering, this happens to be true.

(I doubt that 
_*Transition band width for 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz NR for 15 kHz SCS: *
5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to either side _
 appeared one morning on an otherwise blank piece of paper.)

_*Transition band width for 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz NR for 15 kHz SCS: *
5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to either side _= 5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to whichever side you choose. If I choose the lower and you choose the higher, that is fine. If we both choose the lower, that is fine too. It can therefore be on either side. If it can be on either side, then we see that the 250kHz is available on both sides.

Is this related: Spectrum Emission Mask Measurement Description  It seems useful to me and you will note:

"Measurement Timeout: (see  Measurement Timeouts ).

Limit 30 kHz Bandwidth: +-2.5 MHz
Limit 30 kHz Bandwidth: +-3.5 MHz"
It is the "+/-" that gives us the clue.


----------



## Malakias

PaulQ said:


> Nothing makes any sense in English without context. This is *incredibly *important. I am not avoiding answering, this happens to be true.
> (I doubt that
> _*Transition band width for 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz NR for 15 kHz SCS: *_
> _5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to either side _
> appeared one morning on an otherwise blank piece of paper.)



It does not matter whether the author started from scratch or not. The only thing that matters is that this case can be symmetric or asymmetric and the author has not explained which one is the case, and the text gives no hint of the interpretation. So, he/she seems to have assumed that the reader would be able to understand that the case is symmetric just because he/she has used the word "either".



PaulQ said:


> _*Transition band width for 5, 10, 15 and 20 MHz NR for 15 kHz SCS: *
> 5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to either side _= 5 MHz carriers: 250 kHz to whichever side you choose. If I choose the lower and you choose the higher, that is fine. If we both choose the lower, that is fine too. It can therefore be on either side. If it can be on either side, then we see that the 250kHz is available on both sides.



According to your logic we would have to make a priori assumption that it does not matter whether we choose only one side or both sides. But in this case it makes a big difference. So, we cannot make that assumption.



PaulQ said:


> Is this related: Spectrum Emission Mask Measurement Description  It seems useful to me and you will note:
> "Measurement Timeout: (see  Measurement Timeouts ).
> 
> Limit 30 kHz Bandwidth: +-2.5 MHz
> Limit 30 kHz Bandwidth: +-3.5 MHz"
> It is the "+/-" that gives us the clue.


Normal emission mask is symmetric. This is a special case, which can be asymmetric. So, "+/-" does not necessarily apply.


----------



## PaulQ

Malakias said:


> It does not matter whether the author started from scratch or not.


Throughout the thread, the importance of context has been emphasised.


Malakias said:


> Normal emission mask is symmetric. This is a special case, which can be asymmetric. So, "+/-" does not necessarily apply.


If it does not apply then if there is only one side and the problem is solved. If it is not equal on both sides then using "250kHz either side" is a fault of language and logic. The context has given the answer.

The asymmetry is only important if one of the sides, in this case, is incapable of having the "250kHz."


----------



## Malakias

I know that the context is important. But I did not write that text. If I had written that text, I would have explicitly stated whether the case is asymmetric or symmetric. But the author of that text has not said that. The context does not help here because this particular context is such that it enables two interpretations. So, the context in this case does not clarify the matter.

Afterwards I got to know that the case is symmetric, so the author must have meant "both sides". So, I do not need help in interpreting the meaning of the table. I was only confused by the word "either" at the time of reading because I thought that it means "one side or the other" but then the numbers afterwards showed that it must mean "both sides".

So, I do not need you to further speculate what might be the technical detail that would explain the meaning of "either" in this case. I ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS THE TECHNICAL DETAIL THAT EXPLAINS THAT.
And I do not need you to further explain me about the importance of the context. I ALREADY KNOW THAT THE CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT. But in this case the problem was that the context does not help interpreting the meaning of "either". The context in this case only makes it more ambiguous.

What I just like you to do is to give me a straight answer:
If in the future I bumb into a similar case, where a native English speaker has written "X to either side" (in this case this is the full expression, not part of a sentence), without any further definition, and the context is such that it gives two possibilities for the meaning, either "only one side" or "both sides", then can I safely assume that he/she has ment "both sides", or otherwise it would be a fault of language, and if the author is a native English speaker, he/she probably has not made such a fault ?


----------



## PaulQ

Malakias said:


> So, I do not need you to further speculate what might be the technical detail that would explain the meaning of "either" in this case. I ALREADY KNOW WHAT IS THE TECHNICAL DETAIL THAT EXPLAINS THAT.


You caps lock seems to have stuck - new keyboards are cheap. 


Malakias said:


> Afterwards I got to know that the case is symmetric, so the author must have meant "both sides".


I hope the lesson that you take away from all this is "Context is important - I must share it when asking questions."


Malakias said:


> If in the future I bump into a similar case, where a native English speaker has written "X to either side" ... without any further definition, and the context is such that it gives two possibilities for the meaning, either "only one side" or "both sides", then can I safely assume that he/she meant "both sides", or otherwise it would be a fault of language,


Tell me... which parts of
_"Throughout the thread, the importance of context has been emphasised." _
and
_"Nothing makes any sense in English without context. This is *incredibly *important. I am not avoiding answering, this happens to be true."_​do you not understand?

The answer here is that you should, at least, _*imply *_a verb as kentix did in #25 and #27. Above you wrote:_ "so the author must have meant "both sides""_ you worked that out in the same way that a native speaker would know it - context. 


> and if the author is a native English speaker, he/she probably has not made such a fault ?


Unlike Finns, who never make a mistake in speaking and writing Finnish, regrettably, the English speaker, even native ones, are prone to the odd mistake. Only death and taxes are certain in life.

My last two pieces of advice are (i) the context will inform you (ii) see my signature below.


----------



## Malakias

PaulQ said:


> I hope the lesson that you take away from all this is "Context is important - I must share it when asking questions."
> 
> Tell me... which parts of
> _"Throughout the thread, the importance of context has been emphasised." _
> and
> _"Nothing makes any sense in English without context. This is *incredibly *important. I am not avoiding answering, this happens to be true."_​do you not understand?
> 
> The answer here is that you should, at least, _*imply *_a verb as kentix did in #25 and #27. Above you wrote:_ "so the author must have meant "both sides""_ you worked that out in the same way that a native speaker would know it - context.



NO! You just do not get it: The context, which helped me to know what was ment was calculation (by me) based on a table of NUMBERS!
I am not even allowed to share it with you, but it would not help you either, because you would not know what to do with those numbers.

Since you are so stubborn with the idea of The Almighty Context, here is one example of The Context that helped me to understand the matter:

Table 1 says:
Transition band width for 10 MHz carrier: 320 kHz to either side

Table 2 says:
10 MHz carrier:
Passband (Pb) width: NRB = 52
Pb width: 9.36 MHz

So, now you know The Context. Happy now?

This is what needs to be done with The Context:
Firstly, we need to also know that normal 10 MHz has transition bandwidth of 500 kHz on both sides.
So, if we would have an asymmetric case, we would have 500 kHz + 9.36 MHz + 320 kHz = 10.18 MHz. That is too big.
So, we must have a symmetric case: 320 kHz + 9.36 MHz + 320 kHz = 10 MHz.

What do you think is the implied verb here that explains the context?


----------



## PaulQ

Malakias said:


> So, now you know The Context. Happy now?


Not as happy as I would have been if you had included that in your first post. 


Malakias said:


> What do you think is the implied verb here that explains the context?


In the case of asymmetry, you cannot use "either" unless you use "or" and specify the sides.
In the case of symmetry, I agree with kentix "extends" 


kentix said:


> _“... *extends* 250 KHz on either side of the center line._ “


----------



## Malakias

PaulQ said:


> In the case of asymmetry, you cannot use "either" unless you use "or" and specify the sides.



Ok, so is this finally an implicit answer to my question?
The question was: can I safely assume that "X to either side" without further definition nor verbal context should always mean "to both sides", unless the writer has made a mistake?
Now I understand from your implicit answer that it should always mean "both sides".




PaulQ said:


> In the case of symmetry, I agree with kentix "extends"



Ok, but how does it cope with the used preposition "to": "X to either side"? If you think "to" cannot be used, then the native English speaking author of that text has made a mistake. Well, he/she is American so that could explain...


----------



## kentix

Using "to" is fine. I'm glad you've finally determined that it extends symmetrically. I told you, based on the language, that's what it means - unless the author made a true mistake.


----------



## PaulQ

Descriptive: either has the meaning of "both." There are chairs [to/on/at] either side of the table /Chairs extend either side of the table = [to/on/at] both sides of the table. This is the only meaning.

Your example is descriptive.

As permission or as a command:

Optional: *either *has the meaning of "any [side you choose]." -> You may put the chairs [at] either side of the table = the default meaning is thus: to whichever side of the table you choose, they need not be on the same side as each other, nor need there be equal numbers on both sides, and one side can have no chairs.

This should be followed by a qualifying phrase "... it doesn't matter." or "...as long as they are only on one side." or "...but make sure that there are some on both."

Command/Instruction: "Put the chairs on either side of the table" - [to/on/at] both sides of the table. The only meaning.


----------



## Malakias

kentix said:


> Using "to" is fine. I'm glad you've finally determined that it extends symmetrically. I told you, based on the language, that's what it means - unless the author made a true mistake.



The reason, why I had to deny your explanation, was that you were trying to explain it in technical terms, and it did not make any sense.
However, the fundamental mistake was to assume that if you can choose one side or the other, then it would be just the same to use both because the band is centered.
For your convenience, I now wasted some work time to illustrate the symmetric and asymmetric case, see below (I hope the picture attachment works...)
So, transition band is allowed margin for the filtering, meaning that the margin gives some room to be able to fulfill out-of-band emission mask.
In asymmetric case, transition bands on high and low frequency sides are not equal, and this makes a significant difference from the filtering point of view. However, it does not make any meaningful difference from implementation point of view whether you switch sides, that is why you do not have to specify two different asymmetric cases which are just mirrored.


----------



## kentix

The point is, if it extends a specific distance _to/on/at/past either side_, then it is, by definition, symmetric.

If it's not (necessarily) symmetric, you need different words. For example: _extends 250 KHz to one or both sides. _Or if it's definitely not symmetric:_ extends 100 KHz on the low end and 200 KHz on the high end._

Many of us are using work time being here to help you (and all the other visitors) [who we don't even know] so I don't feel too bad about you reciprocating (another symmetrical activity) by using a little of yours as a way of showing appreciation for our free help.


----------



## Malakias

PaulQ said:


> Descriptive: either has the meaning of "both." There are chairs [to/on/at] either side of the table /Chairs extend either side of the table = [to/on/at] both sides of the table. This is the only meaning.
> 
> Your example is descriptive.
> 
> As permission or as a command:
> 
> Optional: *either *has the meaning of "any [side you choose]." -> You may put the chairs [at] either side of the table = the default meaning is thus: to whichever side of the table you choose, they need not be on the same side as each other, nor need there be equal numbers on both sides, and one side can have no chairs.


This makes now perfect sense!



kentix said:


> The point is, if it extends a specific distance to either side, then it is, by definition, symmetric.
> If it's not symmetric, you need different words.


Yes, I understand this now, but the point of this discussion was that you cannot know that it is symmetric if you do not understand that in this case "either" means "both" 

Thank you, PaulQ and kentix, I highly appreciate your efforts AND ability to debate objectively.


----------



## Malakias

kentix said:


> Many of us are using work time being here to help you (and all the other visitors) [who we don't even know] so I don't feel too bad about you reciprocating (another symmetrical activity) by using a little of yours as a way of showing appreciation for our free help.


Ok, I should not have said that I "wasted work time". That was more like self-irony. But the truth is that usually I am too busy to consume any time for this kind of activity eventhough I would like to. So, it is not a matter of choice.
I do appreciate your efforts in overall, not just for helping me but also others.
I mean it. You know, in Finland we do not express our gratitude nor give compliments out of habit. Usually, you do not get any no matter how good and helpful you are


----------



## kentix

Yes, I've read about Finland. It can seem strange to us.


----------

