I don't have cash, neither do I have means to raise


I don't have cash, nor do I have means to raise

I don't want to use the traditional:

Neither have I cash, nor do I have the means to raise

  • I think the idea's a fine and succinct way to use "nor". Perhaps you need two extra words, though: "I don't have cash, nor do I have the means to raise it"
    – Margana
    May 25, 2015 at 15:55
  • 1
    Your "traditional" version is totally unidiomatic today, and I don't believe it was ever "normal", even in archaic or poetic contexts. May 25, 2015 at 16:26

2 Answers 2


Both are OK (Edit: once corrected as Fumblefingers suggests in a comment to this reply), though for me they are a little literary, which clashes with the colloquial word 'cash'.

I'm not sure if this was just a typo, but I would count your "traditional" sentence as ungrammatical: clause-initial "neither" (like "never" and "so") requires inversion. So "Neither have I" or "Neither do I have".

  • I certainly wouldn't say "both are OK" - without the missing article and an additional noun/pronoun referencing whatever can't be raised (...nor do I have the means to raise it/any [cash]) they're completely unacceptable. May 25, 2015 at 16:30
  • You're right, @FumbleFingers. I'll edit my answer.
    – Colin Fine
    May 25, 2015 at 16:35

"Nor" can indeed appear in a sentence without "neither". One of the accepted conventions of its such usage is listing of two negations in one sentence and starting the second one with "nor", with a comma before it. Your second example is perfectly OK. Go ahead with it.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.