# EN: it does not X, nor does it Y



## OvalTrad

Hello,
I must admit I don't know my English grammar all that well. Could someone tell me if this sentence is correct?
The Ministry does *not* insure the communities' well-being *nor* does it offer living standards the rest of the Canadian population enjoy.

merci


----------



## cropje_jnr

It generally seems quite good to me!


----------



## OvalTrad

Thank you.

So my sentence doesn't fall under a certain double negation rule?


----------



## uptown

There is nothing incorrect with your sentence.

Your *grammatically correct structure*:
<subject 1> + does + not + <verb 1>, nor does + <pronoun referring to subject 1> + <verb 2>.

My only correction is to add a comma after "well-being":
_The Ministry does not ensure the communities' well-being*,* nor does it offer living standards the rest of the Canadian population enjoy._

This structure is perfectly correct. The "nor" in the second clause acts as both a conjunction two create the compound sentences and as a negation for <verb 2>.

Another *grammatically correct structure*:
Neither does + <subject 1> + <verb 1>, nor does + <pronoun referring to subject 1> + <verb 2>.

So your sentence could have been:
_Neither does the Ministry insure the communities' well-being*,* nor does it offer living standards the rest of the Canadian population enjoy._

One frequently used, readily understood, yet *grammatically incorrect structure*:
<subject 1> + does + not + <verb 1>, *neither* does + <pronoun referring to subject 1> + <verb 2>.

Example:
_The Ministry does not ensure the communities' well-being, _*neither*_ does it offer living standards the rest of the Canadian population enjoy._

Unless I'm mistaken, "neither" should only be used with "nor" (and likewise, "either" should only be used with "or"). That said, this construction is so common-place that you wouldn't sound stupid using it; rather, you would sound more native.

I hope this helps.


----------



## OvalTrad

Thank you uptown. Very informative. I had read your grammar precision quickly yesterday and it had left me a little puzzled. Had I or not written a good sentence? Now that I read it carrefully, I understand that I had naturally (with no grammar basis LOL) written a very good (or almost) English sentence.

But... are you saying in the end that writing in bad English would help me hide the fact that English is not my mother tongue? I can imagine the point if I swith this situation to French... we have many widely used very bad French grammar sentences going around... We hear them (especially here in Québec) ... but when I read one in a document, I just think that the writer should quit the trade or go back to school, and not that he's a French native.

Would English and French differ on this matter? In French, a twisted grammar sentence is simply wrong and unacceptable, and shows the author's lack of knowledge of the French language. Seems to me English is more... how to say? Grammar twistable.


----------



## cropje_jnr

I guess the point is that certain wordings and grammatical structures are so widely-used by English speakers that, despite their being incorrect, they come to typify native speech.

OvalTrad, do not employ grammatically incorrect constructions unless the context you're speaking or writing in specifically demands that your tone be colloquial. That's my advice, in any case. 

To return to your specific question, "nor" is the correct term. To be perfectly honest, "neither" in its place doesn't strike me as overly common-place, and certainly seems incorrect.


----------



## MichiganQuebec

My opinion is that the original sentence is perfectly fine.  

I agree that "neither" and "nor" should be used together, but I don't think that they must be used together.   Going back to Uptown's example, we also use "either" and "or" together, but we often use "or" without using "either."  You'll see in the following examples that the use of "either" is optional:

Examples:  We can (either) do this or that.  He'll probably (either) answer tomorrow or the next day.

Perhaps this is just my opinion, but I believe that "nor" can be properly used without using "neither," just as "or" can be properly used without "either."

However, I do note that while "either..or" presents an option, "neither..nor" presents an agreement (negative on both ends), rather than an option.   This might make a difference that I'm not aware of.  However, I'd like to present the following example of 4 versions of the same sentence:

He can neither sing nor dance.  
= He can't sing or dance.  
= He can't sing, and he can't dance.
= He can't sing, nor can he dance.

Whether or not the last question is "proper" is debatable, but it is certainly heard quite often.  I may be wrong, but it seems that I've seen the structure used frequently enough in literary works, and frequent use in literature is usually grounds enough to at least state that such a structure is "generally accepted."


----------



## scottbutcher

I disagree with _all_ of the replies.  Although the word population is collective, it is nevertheless singular not plural.  The population _is_ large, not the population _are_ large.  The word _rest_ can be singular or plural - in "The rest of the men", rest is plural. In "The rest of the sugar", rest is singular.  Therefore the sentence should read, "The Ministry does not insure the communities' well being nor does it offer living standards the rest of the Canadian population enjoys. (not enjoy)


----------



## MichiganQuebec

Good observation!

"Of the Canadian population" is a prepositional phrase, the word _population_ being the object of the preposition _of_.  Thus the subject, as you've noted, is the word _rest_, and not _population_. 

Back on topic:
Regarding the use of _nor_, however, I've edited my previous response to include another example which can hopefully clarify my response a bit.

_[Edited for clarity, and to keep things on topic.] _


----------



## scottbutcher

OvalTrad said:


> So my sentence doesn't fall under a certain double negation rule?



Neither/nor are two words which go together (somewhat like ne/pas in French).  They are not a double negative.



uptown said:


> So your sentence could have been:
> _Neither does the Ministry insure the communities' well-being*,* nor does it offer living standards the rest of the Canadian population enjoy._



I feel uncomfortable with this sentence.  I think _The Ministry neither insures ... nor..._ would be better.  I would like to do some more research into this and see what I come up with.  What about the sentence _The Ministry doesn't insure the communities well-being and it doesn't have the resources to do so either._?  Is this incorrect?  Obviously _nor does it have the resources_ would work better but we hear this kind of construction all the time.  And if 'either' is alright on its own, why not 'neither'?  Something to think about.


----------



## snellers88

The Ministry neither ensures the communities' well-being, nor offers living standards comparable to those which the rest of the Canadian population enjoy.

The Ministry neither ensures the communities' well-being, nor does it offer the same standard of living which the rest of the Canadian population enjoy.

The Ministry does not ensure the communities' well-being, or offer the same living standards which the rest of the Canadian population (or simply 'the rest of Canada') enjoy/ are used to/ are accustomed to/ benefit from.


----------



## Elvie

Juste un petit mot: je crois que personne n'a clarifié ici la différence entre "to insure" et "to ensure".

"To insure" veut dire assurer, comme achèter l'assurance

"To ensure" veut dire s'assurer, comme vérifier que quelque chose soit correcte.

Beaucoup d'Anglophones font la même erreur


----------



## scottbutcher

The Oxford English dictionary says under the fifth defintion for "insure":

5. trans. To make certain, to secure, to guarantee (some thing, event, etc.): = ASSURE v. 5, 7a, ENSURE v. 8, 9.

In other words "insure" and "ensure" can be used interchangeably but the most recent example in the OED of "insures" used in this sense is 1873. So it does seem to be well on its way out of usage but you may still find it in older writings of course.

As for "Neither does the Ministry insure the communities' well-being, nor does it offer living standards the rest of the Canadian population enjoy[s]. This is not standard usage. As noted by others, "The Ministry neither insures, nor does it offer ..." would be correct.


----------



## La mort de la langue

The sentence is very close and I am going to say that the neither nor relationship is insignificant. Adding the nor actually strengthens whatever argument you are in because it reinforces the fact that you are listing multiple flaws instead of "and" which combines the two ideas into a smaller, less threatening argument.


----------

