# Making new vow is not permitted. Changing the vow is not permitted.



## partinstance

Hello.

I just don't know how to describe the subject in English briefly and clearly.

Context.

I have made a vow  to abide by the following -
1. _Alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays__ and Sundays_.
2. _Making new vow is not permitted. Changing this vow is not permitted_.

The vow consists of two points. I am not sure about the second one. Concept is based on simple religious study: "don't make any vows, but if you have any, then you must keep it."
What version of the second point is the most correct? I put alternatives in brackets.

_Making new vow (a new vow/new vows/new vow(s)/any new vow/any new vows/any new vow(s)) is not permitted. Changing this (the) vow is not permitted_.

I know that a vow can't be changed by definition but there is a gray zone as in example below.
If I changed to another job in which Tuesdays and Wednesdays, for example, were the days off, then I would not consider it to be breaking the promise if I moved "drinking days" from Sat. and Sun. to Tue. and Wed.


Thank you in advance.


----------



## Language Hound

"Making new vow is not permitted" is not correct.
Personally, I would say:
_Making new vows is not permitted._

If you are going to list the statements as you did above,
I would change the order of the statements in number 2
unless you actually do mean that changing the vow about
making new vows is not permitted.
I thought you were trying to say that changing the vow
stated in number 1 was not permitted, but I may have misunderstood.

P.S.  If you want to get around what you call the "gray zone,"
you could always change "on Saturdays and Sundays" to
"on my days off."


----------



## Myridon

2) could also be "Making a new vow..."  It needs an article or to be plural.
The first part of 2) says that you will never in your life make another vow about anything.  I don't think you mean that.


----------



## partinstance

Myridon said:


> 2) could also be "Making a new vow..."  It needs an article or to be plural.
> .



Am I right that "any new vow" = "a new vow" and "c_hanging this vow" = "changing the vow"? _What is more suitable here?
Maybe "_new vow(s)" _is better than just plural? 





Myridon said:


> The first part of 2) says that you will never in your life make another vow about anything. I don't think you mean that.



It is exactly what I want to say.


----------



## partinstance

Language Hound said:


> "Making new vow is not permitted" is not correct.
> Personally, I would say:
> _Making new vows is not permitted._
> 
> If you are going to list the statements as you did above,
> I would change the order of the statements in number 2
> unless you actually do mean that changing the vow about
> making new vows is not permitted.
> I thought you were trying to say that changing the vow
> stated in number 1 was not permitted, but I may have misunderstood.
> 
> P.S.  If you want to get around what you call the "gray zone,"
> you could always change "on Saturdays and Sundays" to
> "on my days off."




I mean that changing applies to the whole vow including also number 2. 
How do you feel about putting conjunction "and"/"or" there?
_Making new vows and changing this vow is not permitted_.

p.s. Days off can be two-three or even more days a week. It depends on a job and other conditions, for example a pensioner has 7 days off in a week.


----------



## Cagey

It is a little tricky to join two negative ideas with _and_.  If  you say making new vows and changing this vow is not permitted, it looks  as though only the combination is prohibited.  You may be allowed to do  one at a time. 

Breaking them into two sentences is one way to deal with this, but I find the prohibition _"Making new vows is not permitted" _confusing.   It seems to me to prohibit making any other vow at all, but surely you  are allowed to make vows concerning different things.  

_"Making a new vow" _may  be slightly better, because we can assume that you are talking about a  vow on the same topic.  However it still is not clear.   Do you mean to  prohibit a vow not to drink alcohol at all?  Or a vow to help your  father in some way?  

Perhaps this is what you mean _"Replacing this vow with another is not permitted" of "No other vow may undo this vow." _ You need to explain more specifically what you mean.

_ "Changing this vow is not permitted"_ is clear enough.


----------



## Truffula

How about:

I vow only to drink alcohol two days a week, chosen if possible from the days I have off work.
I furthermore vow that after this I will never make another vow, nor will I change or break this vow.


If it is in the past it would be more like:

I have vowed that I will only drink alcohol two days out of the week.
I will never take another vow, nor will I change or break this vow.


----------



## partinstance

Cagey said:


> It is a little tricky to join two negative ideas with _and_.  If  you say making new vows and changing this vow is not permitted, it looks  as though only the combination is prohibited.  You may be allowed to do  one at a time.
> 
> Breaking them into two sentences is one way to deal with this, but I find the prohibition _"Making new vows is not permitted" _confusing.   It seems to me to prohibit making any other vow at all, but surely you  are allowed to make vows concerning different things.
> 
> _"Making a new vow" _may  be slightly better, because we can assume that you are talking about a  vow on the same topic.  However it still is not clear.   Do you mean to  prohibit a vow not to drink alcohol at all?  Or a vow to help your  father in some way?
> 
> .



The second variant - all possible vows in the future.




Truffula said:


> How about:
> 
> I vow only to drink alcohol two days a week, chosen if possible from the days I have off work.
> I furthermore vow that after this I will never make another vow, nor will I change or break this vow.
> 
> 
> If it is in the past it would be more like:
> 
> I have vowed that I will only drink alcohol two days out of the week.
> I will never take another vow, nor will I change or break this vow.



It is what I meant.
So my versions are able to convey the meaning correctly.


----------



## PaulQ

Truffula said:


> I vow only to drink alcohol two days a week, chosen if possible from the days I have off work.


It is possible to interpret this as "The only thing I will drink on two days is alcohol.", i.e. no coffee, water or fruit juice.


partinstance said:


> I have made two vows -
> I vow that
> 1. except upon two days of the week, I will not consume [any] alcohol.
> 2. I will neither change the first vow nor make a new vow to replace the first vow.


When making a vow, as part of that vow, it is usual to include yourself as the subject: your original vows did not do that.


----------



## Truffula

I wrote earlier:
 
  Originally Posted by *Truffula*: [
                 I vow only to drink alcohol two days a week, chosen if possible from the days I have off work.




PaulQ said:


> It is possible to interpret this as "The only thing I will drink on two days is alcohol.", i.e. no coffee, water or fruit juice.



PaulQ is right about this; we could fix it by revising to:

I vow to drink alcohol on only two days a week, chosen if possible from the days I have off work.


----------



## partinstance

I have composed new edition.

THE VOW
_1. Alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays__ and Sundays_.
2. _Making new vows is not permitted. Changing the vow is not permitted_.


I am wondering about 2#.
Is there any difference if the order of the sentences is changed?

THE VOW
_1. Alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays__ and Sundays_.
2. _Changing the vow is not permitted_. _Making new vows is not permitted.

_
Thank you


----------



## JamesM

Who is granting this permission, partinstance?  By what authority?  Usually a vow is personal.  "I vow never to drink alcohol on a workday", for example.  What you have written here sounds like a rule, not a vow, being imposed by one person over another person.


----------



## partinstance

JamesM said:


> Who is granting this permission, partinstance?  By what authority?  Usually a vow is personal.  "I vow never to drink alcohol on a workday", for example.  What you have written here sounds like a rule, not a vow, being imposed by one person over another person.



It is just short description of vow, for reference.
Could you provide your opinion on the question about changing order of sentences please?


----------



## PaulQ

partinstance said:


> It is just short description of vow, for reference.
> Could you provide your opinion on the question about changing order of sentences please?


The problem that you have is that neither 
_
1. Alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays__ and Sundays_.
nor
2. _Changing the vow is not permitted_. _Making new vows is not permitted._

is a vow, so your question cannot be answered. 

< Not needed. >

_1. Alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays__ and Sundays_.
and
2. _Changing the vow is not permitted_. _Making new vows is not permitted._

are rules or instructions - neither is a vow.


----------



## partinstance

Hello.

Context is a person making a vow.

I am wondering about 2#. Is there any difference if the order of the sentences is changed?

THE VOW
I vow to keep the following rules:
_1. Alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays__ and Sundays_.
2. _Making new vows is not permitted. Changing the vow is not permitted_.


THE VOW
I vow to keep the following rules:
_1. Alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays__ and Sundays_.
2. _Changing the vow is not permitted_. _Making new vows is not permitted._



Thank you.


----------



## Keith Bradford

I prefer the second version, there seems to be a more logical progression.


----------



## JulianStuart

I agree with Keith.  There is no change in the meaning of 2) and no effect on the force (or strength of the commitment) such vows would represent.


----------



## partinstance

JulianStuart said:


> I agree with Keith.  There is no change in the meaning of 2) and no effect on the force (or strength of the commitment) such vows would represent.



Julian, could you explain in other words please?
I put "changing" to the end because "changing" applies to the entire vow including 2# - no change in the rule about new vows is allowed.


----------



## partinstance

partinstance said:


> Julian, could you explain in other words please?
> I put "changing" to the end because "changing" is applied to the entire vow including 2# - no change in the rule about new vows is allowed. "Changing" is applied to both - 1# and 2#



I have fixed the grammar and made the explanation more clear.


----------



## JamesM

We do not mix vows and rules in English, partinstance.  A vow is a personal oath, a solemn promise I make to myself.  A rule is imposed by someone else who has the authority to enforce it (usually with punishment). 

For example, as a vow I would expect to see the following:

_I vow not to drink alcohol on any day other than Saturday or Sunday.  I solemnly swear I will not change or break this vow._

As a rule I would expect the following:

The following rule will be observed.  If a rule is broken it is punishable by (some punishment).

_1) You will not drink alcohol on any day other than Saturday or Sunday._


----------



## partinstance

Keith Bradford said:


> I prefer the second version, there seems to be a more logical progression.



What if someone thinks like this:
First no changes in the vow allowed, then there is one change - adding the statement about new vow.


----------



## partinstance

JamesM said:


> We do not mix vows and rules in English, partinstance.  A vow is a personal oath, a solemn promise I make to myself.  A rule is imposed by someone else who has the authority to enforce it (usually with punishment).
> 
> For example, as a vow I would expect to see the following:
> 
> _I vow not to drink alcohol on any day other than Saturday or Sunday.  I solemnly swear I will not change or break this vow._
> 
> As a rule I would expect the following:
> 
> The following rule will be observed.  If a rule is broken it is punishable by (some punishment).
> 
> _1) You will not drink alcohol on any day other than Saturday or Sunday._



James, please see post#15. I have a question only about order of sentences.


----------



## JulianStuart

partinstance said:


> Hello.
> 
> Context is a person making a vow.
> 
> I am wondering about 2#. *Is there any difference if the order of the sentences is changed?*
> 
> THE VOW
> I vow to keep the following rules:
> _1. Alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays__ and Sundays_.
> 2. _Making new vows is not permitted. Changing the vow is not permitted_.
> 
> 
> THE VOW
> I vow to keep the following rules:
> _1. Alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays__ and Sundays_.
> 2. _Changing the vow is not permitted_. _Making new vows is not permitted._
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you.





JulianStuart said:


> I agree with Keith. * There is no change in the meaning of 2)* and no effect on the force (or strength of the commitment) such vows would represent.





partinstance said:


> James, please see post#15. I have a question only about order of sentences.


'Sorry if my answer above was not clear enough.  I meant "there is no change in meaning etc. when you change the order of the sentences".


----------



## JamesM

partinstance said:


> James, please see post#15. I have a question only about order of sentences.



The meaning is equally _unclear_ no matter which way you order the sentences.


----------



## velisarius

partinstance said:


> What if someone thinks like this:
> First no changes in the vow allowed, then there is one change - adding the statement about new vow.



I can't imagine anyone thinking like this, but if you think that's possible why don't you put the two restrictions into one sentence? 

_Changing the vow ​or making new vows is not permitted_ - or -
_
Neither changing the vow nor making new vows is permitted._


----------



## partinstance

JamesM said:


> The meaning is equally _unclear_ no matter which way you order the sentences.



But you understood what it is about.


----------



## partinstance

velisarius said:


> I can't imagine anyone thinking like this, but if you think that's possible why don't you put the two restrictions into one sentence?
> 
> _Changing the vow ​or making new vows is not permitted_ - or -
> _
> Neither changing the vow nor making new vows is permitted._




It is not best way. Please see post 5# and the next one.


----------



## JamesM

Velisarius's suggestion takes care of the problem mentioned in post #6 by using "neither/nor".


----------



## wandle

Why not the following?

_This is my one, final and immutable vow: alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays and Sundays._


----------



## partinstance

JamesM said:


> Velisarius's suggestion takes care of the problem mentioned in post #6 by using "neither/nor".



I missed that suggestion. Thanks for the reminder. It is new grammar construction for me.
Could you propose one more version like Velisarius's one?
_
Neither changing the vow nor making new vows is permitted._


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:


> Why not the following?
> This is my one, final and immutable vow: alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays and Sundays.



This is an excellent suggestion, partinstance.  Wandle's suggestion puts everything into one sentence and expresses the "cannot make new vows and cannot change vow" conditions very elegantly.

I still think "is permitted" is a bit odd if you are vowing something to yourself. Personally, I would say "This is my one, final and immutable vow: I will not drink alcohol except on Saturdays and Sundays." 

I think you've received an amazing amount of help on this question.


----------



## PaulQ

wandle said:


> Why not the following?
> 
> _This is my one, final and immutable vow: alcohol is permitted only on Saturdays and Sundays._


(i) This would preclude any further vows on *any other* matter 
(ii) If there were any previous vows, the whole idea of the OP making a vow would be brought into question.


----------



## wandle

Points (i) and (ii) are certainly both true; I understand that they correspond with *partinstance's* intention.


----------



## partinstance

JamesM said:


> Velisarius's suggestion takes care of the problem mentioned in post #6 by using "neither/nor".




Could you explain this construction a little bit more: neither ... nor.   Is that opposite of “either…or” or “both..and”?

Neither A nor B is permitted.  Does it mean that “A or B is not permitted” OR “A and B are not permitted”?

Thank you


----------



## PaulQ

Neither A nor B is permitted. = “A and B are not permitted”


----------



## JulianStuart

PaulQ said:


> *Neither A nor B is permitted*. = “A and B are not permitted”


In case that is not clear enough we can add
1) A is not permitted.  
2) B is not permitted.  
3) The combination of "A and B together" is also not permitted.


----------



## partinstance

PaulQ said:


> Neither A nor B is permitted. = “A and B are not permitted”



It was Velisarius's suggestion to use "neither". http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2969144&page=2&p=15119557#post15119557

_Neither changing the vow nor making new vows is permitted._
But if it is equal to "_Changing the vow and making new vows are not permitted", _then maybe it would be better to use and/or?
_Changing the vow and/or making new vows is not permitted_.


Although I am not native speaker, it seems to me that  "Neither A nor B is permitted" is similar but not exactly equal to “A and B are not permitted”.


----------



## JulianStuart

partinstance said:


> Although I am not native speaker, it seems to me that  "Neither A nor B is permitted" is similar but not exactly equal to “A and B are not permitted”.


Bu they are equal. You seem to think it might refer only to A+B.  If it were only the _combination_ of "A and B" that were not permitted it would read "(A and B) is not permitted.  The use of the plural verb form means the A is not permitted and B is not permitted.


----------



## partinstance

JulianStuart said:


> Bu they are equal. You seem to think it might refer only to A+B.  If it were only the _combination_ of "A and B" that were not permitted it would read "(A and B) is not permitted.  The use of the plural verb form means the A is not permitted and B is not permitted.



As a result I would like to choose one of these versions.

_1. Making new vows is not permitted. Changing the vow is not permitted_. 
_2. Making new vows and changing the vow are not permitted_.
_3. Making new vows and/or changing the vow is not permitted_.


Is there any difference in meaning taking into account post #6?


----------



## PaulQ

_3. Making new vows and/or changing the original vow is not permitted_. This seems to me to be best.


----------



## partinstance

PaulQ said:


> _3. Making new vows and/or changing the original vow is not permitted_. This seems to me to be best.



If I put just "vows" instead of "new vows", how does the meaning change?

thanks


----------



## JulianStuart

It would be illogical, captain  If this person has already made some vows, it would not make sense to say "Making vows is not permitted"  You would be telling this person they have already done something that is  "not permitted"


----------



## qu'est-ce que c'est

partinstance said:


> But you understood what it is about.


Hello,
I think it was just a matter of good logic in the sentence: whether a sentence is logical or not. If something is not permitted, it is not so out of thin air, it is because someone, first, prohibited it and then, afterwards, did not permit it. Now, to describe that situation completely and satisfactorily, one needs to point out who that person was. For example, in the second example of #20, that is the speaker who addressed you and told you that you are not permitted by them to do that. But in the case of a vow such person may only be the one who pronounces the vow, named by the pronoun "I". That is merely a matter of logic and good style: one needs to evoke and mention all important factors; I do not even think that this is a special feature of English as JamesM guessed in #20. The participant who has the name wandle fixed this problem in #33, but that fix was, apparently, somewhat broken, I mean "too smart" and not straight... If this matters now...


----------

