# 和 vs 而且



## 盲人瞎馬

简报：彭斯拒绝罢免特朗普；多名共和党人支持弹劾

“我敦促你和国会每一位议员避免采取会进一步分裂*和*煽动当下激烈情绪的行动。

I read that 和 is used between nouns and 而且 between verbs. 分裂 and 煽动 are clearly verbs in that sentence, yet 和 is separating them. This is also not the first time I see this usage.

What's going on?


----------



## Flaminius

To the best of my knowledge, there are conjunctions that are exclusively used with nouns (and pronouns), but 和 is not one of them.  Noun-only conjunctions include: 与, 及, and 跟


----------



## T.D

T.D said:


> I personally haven't heard of such a rule that 而且 can only be used between verbs.


I take it back, 而且and并且 can only be used between verbs and verbal phrases, indicating those actions take place one after another or simultaneously, according to my research.


----------



## Flaminius

T.D said:


> Seceding an atmosphere makes no sense to me.


The portion of 分裂…情绪的行动 in VP Pence's letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi is verbatim, “I urge you and every member of Congress to avoid actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment.”  Perhaps dividing passions is still a tenuous phraseology, but it falls into the rhetorical use of words.


----------



## T.D

Flaminius said:


> The portion of 分裂…情绪的行动 in VP Pence's letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi is verbatim, “I urge you and every member of Congress to avoid actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment.”  Perhaps dividing passions is still a tenuous phraseology, but it falls into the rhetorical use of words.


Yea I just found the original English sentence.
I changed my mind and now I tend to believe it was a result of hurried translation. Using 和 in the sentence was weird, but the meaning of the sentence was perfectly delivered. I would prefer 或 or 并, speaking for myself.


----------



## T.D

I consulted a Chinese teacher, and he says it was 避免采取“分裂的行动”和“煽动当下情绪的行动”. These two are noun phrases in an attributive position, thus 和 is correct.


----------



## Skatinginbc

会煮饭烧菜的妻子
会赚钱养家的妻子
会煮饭烧菜*、*赚钱养家的妻子 
会煮饭烧菜*并*赚钱养家的妻子  (这个妻子既会煮饭烧菜又会赚钱养家) ≠ 会煮饭烧菜的妻子和会赚钱养家的妻子 (前面这个妻子和后面这个妻子不是同一个妻子)
会煮饭烧菜*和*赚钱养家的妻子 


> actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment.


会进一步分裂人民的行动
会进一步煽动当下激烈情绪的行动
会进一步分裂人民*、*煽动当下激烈情绪的行动 
会进一步分裂人民*并*煽动当下激烈情绪的行动  (这种行动既会分裂人民又会煽动情绪)
会进一步分裂人民*和*煽动当下激烈情绪的行动


----------



## T.D

Skatinginbc said:


> 会煮饭烧菜*和*赚钱养家的妻子
> 
> 会进一步分裂人民*和*煽动当下激烈情绪的行动


These two sound fine to me tho...


----------



## Skatinginbc

去买退烧*和*保胃的药 ==> 是去买退烧药和保胃药,  而不是买既能退烧又能保胃的药.

actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment. ==> 是既会分裂人民又会煽动情绪的行动, 所以:
会进一步分裂人民*和*煽动当下激烈情绪的行动 (= 分裂人民的行动 + 煽动情绪的行动 ==> 前面的行动和后面的行动不是同一个行动, 与英语原文不合)


----------



## T.D

Skatinginbc said:


> 去买退烧和保胃药


This sounds unnature to me, I will choose to separate them completely, 去买退烧药和保胃药。
我认为问题在于对英文原文的理解，因为原句里divide没有对象，唯一可能作为对象的只有后面的“passion”，而分裂情绪(至少在中文里)实在说不通，所以我现在倾向于我老师的观点，as in #6


----------



## Skatinginbc

It seems obvious to me that Pence meant "_actions that would further divide_ (the country) _and inflame the passions of the moment_." ==> actions that 既会 divide the country 又会 inflame the passions of the moment.

divide the country, the nation, or the American people--that's what he meant.
Reuters: Impeaching Trump would further divide the country, says White House.
New York Magazine: the vice-president has described the second Trump impeachment as an act that would “further divide” the nation.
Fox10 News: Impeachment would further divide the American people at a time when unity is needed.


----------



## retrogradedwithwind

Sometimes bad phraseology destroys all.  I will choose 分化 to translate the sentence.


> I urge you and every member of Congress to avoid actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment.
> 
> 我督促你和国会中的每一个人不要采取错误行动，以免分化和激化当下的（民众）情绪。





Spoiler: curiosity 2



To be frank, I don't think "divide passions" is good phraseology,  and its meaning in the sentence is ambiguous. As its translation "分化情绪" is therefore ambiguous.



@Vitalore @Flaminius NOW “和” could be used as a conjunction between verbs， but adverbs or objects must not be absent,  and the verbs should be double-syllable.


> 多跟同事讨论和交流
> 保护和改善环境






Spoiler: what's this? 



I am just curious about this function...


----------



## Skatinginbc

retrogradedwithwind said:


> 分化


----------



## T.D

Well, I've been thinking about this and I have a new theory...just saying. 
Can it be that, in the original English sentence, 'further' was a verb instead of an adverb, and 'divide' was a noun, instead of a verb. 
Then the sentence becomes 避免采取*加剧分裂*和*煽动当下激烈情绪*的行动。


----------



## Skatinginbc

T.D said:


> 'divide' was a noun, instead of a verb.


Then it calls for an article: "to further a divide" or "to further the divide".


----------



## T.D

Skatinginbc said:


> Then it calls for an article: "to further a divide" or "to further the divide".


That's what I was thinking too until I found this,

‘Impeaching Trump will not heal divide in country'

I'm not sure whether 'the' is omittable in speeches as well as in titles. Perhaps there is no need to point out 'which divide', under the circumstance. I recently read an article that said, by adding 'the' to something, you are trying to distinguish yourself from it. Maybe Pence wanted himself to sound more involved. (I may need to go to the English forum to find out)


----------



## yuechu

T.D said:


> ‘Impeaching Trump will not heal divide in country'


Hi, T.D!
The (indefinite or definite) article is missing there only because it is a headline (or title). In speech, there would definitely be an article there.

(Note: I have not read the whole thread but just wanted to let you know about that part  )


----------



## T.D

yuechu said:


> Hi, T.D!
> The article is missing there only because it is a headline (or title). In speech, there would definitely be an article there.
> 
> (Note: I have not read the whole thread but just wanted to let you know about that part  )


I checked the video came along with that report and the interviewee did say 'heal the divide'.
I was just thinking, the title was bearing quotation marks, didn't it mean it was a direct quote?


----------



## yuechu

Hmm... that is an interesting observation. Quotation marks are used there but it is not a direct quote, I don't think. I haven't listened to the video, but I imagine the quotation marks are just used there to show that that's what the person (journalist? expert?) was saying.


----------



## T.D

yuechu said:


> Hmm... that is an interesting observation. Quotation marks are used there but it is not a direct quote, I don't think.


Well since you are here, may I have your opinion?
How do you think we shall interpret ' actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment'? Does 'divide the passions' make any sense to you?


----------



## yuechu

I just listened to the video but I didn't hear the sentence you just mentioned. (I did hear the 'heal the divide' part though)



T.D said:


> ' actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment'? Does 'divide the passions' make any sense to you?


No, I don't think that "divide" goes with "the passions of the moment" here. "Divide" is likely referring to people, even though the word "people" is not mentioned.


----------



## T.D

yuechu said:


> I just listened to the video but I didn't hear the sentence you just mentioned. (I did hear the 'heal the divide' part though)


The 'divide and inflame' sentence was from House Votes 223-205 to Call on Pence to Strip Trump of Power


----------

