Conjunction at the end of a neither / nor list to mean "in order to"

Question

My German wife recently came up with this sentence while we were practicing English:

Yes, sorry I'm neither born in the 1900 or read an old Shakespeare, to know any old English word

My natural correction was to say:

I was neither born in the 1900s, nor have I read an old Shakespearian novel, to be able to know any old English words

But this also doesn't feel right to me. In German I guess I could use the structure:

I was neither born in the 1900's, nor have I read an old Shakespearian novel, um any old English words to know

And the closest thing I can think of in English for this purpose, although the literal translation of "um" is "in order to" (which I guess is similar to "to be able to"), is "that" or "so that". But I don't think "so that" is correct, because I feel like this implies a positive case, that they do know some old English words. But using just "that" also feels wrong:

I was neither born in the 1900's, nor have I read an old Shakespearian novel, that I might know any old English words

And now when I read the first sentence again, I can't help but wonder if that was in some ways more Grammatically correct for the rest of the sentence structure? I couldn't find anything on Google to help me sort this out.

So two questions:

• What conjunction do I use at the end of a "neither / nor" list to mean "in order to"?
• How do I correctly say this example sentence?

Updates:

• Oops, someone pointed out Shakespeare didn't write any novels, so you can replace "novel" with "play"
• I'm curious to know if this can be done while keeping the sentence negative, "I wasn't born in ..." while still being Grammatically correct.

Answer 1

What conjunction do I use at the end of a "neither / nor" list to mean "in order to"?

The phrase in order to functions as a subordinating conjunction and means: a) for the purpose of, b) as a means to, c) with the aim of, etc. So, it only makes sense to say something like this if we have a purpose or intention or aim. But the sentence in question doesn't mean this. Your not being born in the 1900s isn't purposeful. Neither is your not having read any Shakespeare. Since these conditions lack purpose, it's incoherent to follow up by insisting that they do.

How do I correctly say this example sentence?

One of your example sentences is correct: I was neither born in the 1900's, nor have I read an old Shakespearian novel, that I might know any old English words.

The subordinating conjunction that works here, but not because it expresses a purpose. It works because it expresses a result. In my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the fourth definition of that as a conjunction is:

Definition

Introducing a clause expressing a result or consequence (in fact or >in supposition): Now usu. with antecedent so or such.

Examples

OE.Shakes. Wint. T. - I'd shriek, that even your ears Should rift to hear me.

W. Cowper - Did famine or did plague prevail That so much death appears?

H. Carpenter - A dormouse (who lived to be so old that its eyebrows turned white).

Guardian - Brands of soya yoghurt…so unpalateable that they have ended up down the sink.

So, in your sentence, the that is introducing the reader to the consequence (not purpose) of your not being born in the 1900s and your not having read Shakespeare.

---

You could also use your other construction: to be able to. You could say,

"I was neither born in the 1900s, nor have I read any Shakespearean text, to be able to know any Old English words."

(Note my emendations: [1900's --> 1900s], [Shakespearian --> Shakespearean], [old English --> Old English.])

This formulation also works because the idea of being able to regards abilities. And in your sentence, you're indeed talking about an ability, albeit one you lack.

Answer 2

@PoundHash has made a good attempt to provide a conjunction, but I don’t find either of his suggestions represent standard usage by native speakers. My own opinion is that this is one of the many examples of the fact that different languages have different sentence structures (German with its rules of word order, especially) and that a non-native speaker must learn to stop trying to translate word for word, but identify the idea and then try to express it in the way one does in the other language. Sorry to preach, but I have the scars from trying to express myself in other European languages. So, my answer is:

There is probably no way of substituting an English conjunction for the German, um, in these circumstances, without the sentence appearing clumsy or unnatural. It is more natural in an English sentence of this type to put the conjunction at the start of a neither/nor clause, rather than at the end.

I would rephrase (extensively) e.g.

I am afraid that as I was neither born in 1900 nor have read Shakespeare, I am not familiar with archaic English words.

(Of course the grouping of Shakespearian English and that of 1900 is most questionable, but as this was the example…)

Notice the what I have done is to change the word order, putting the clause with the conjunction, as, at the beginning, and the conjunction at the beginning of the clause, not the end. I could reverse the order of the clauses, but the conjunction will still be in a different clause (that of the reason) from the German (that of the consequence).

One can maintain the order of ideas and that of a linked consequence, but I think that requires either two sentences or a ‘cheat’ comma:

Unfortunately, I was neither born in 1900 nor have I read Shakespeare, so I am not familiar with archaic English words.

The poster’s attention is also drawn to the fact that this example uses two different auxiliaries — ‘was’ and ‘have’ — in the neither/nor structure. Using ‘am’ as in the example is not the correct tense, and is wrong for ‘read’.

Answer 3

Yes the sentence is correct. A few surplus words for additional clarity can do no harm.

Yes, sorry I'm neither born in the 1900 nor read an old Shakespeare, for me to know any old English word.