1

In the following, “does not cause” seems to be clear negation, and total negation requires “or”, therefore:

The widget does not cause deformities or cracks

However, it is unclear to me whether the following types of words and phrases are strong enough in negation to enable an “or” to clearly express total negation.

For example:

The widget leaves a product:

without X or Y
free from X or Y
lacking X or Y

Questions:

  1. Would, for example, “. . . without X or Y” above unambiguously mean “having no X and having no Y”?

  2. What is the term for this class of words and phrases and are there other common members of the group?

Improve this question
3
  • Why not say The widget leaves the product X-free and Y-free, and eliminate the possibility of ambiguity?
    – Jim
    Oct 24, 2012 at 2:22
  • 1
    This is a tough question. On my PhD exam in semantics, I was asked to describe the similarities and differences among the negative predicates not have, lack, be without, and be missing. There are a lot of them, and they don't line up in any easy way. Try fitting them (and be free from) into this sentence, for instance: Bill ..... a finger on his left hand. By the way, they're simply called Negatives.
    – John Lawler
    Oct 24, 2012 at 5:01
  • essentially, using nor in place of or removes the ambiguity.
    – SF.
    Oct 24, 2012 at 8:34

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

If your sentence is going to begin with The widget leaves a product and end with without X or Y, it means that the widget somehow fixes the product. If the widget is an antivirus and antispam/malware program, e.g., and the product is your computing device, then you can use one of these three:

The widget leaves a product without X or Y

is clear and means that there will be neither X (viruses) nor Y (spam/malware) in the product. The same is true for

The widget leaves a product without X and Y

and

The widget leaves a product free from X and Y

but the option with "lacking X or Y" is, IMHO, undesirable.

Improve this answer
1
  • Note that lacking X and Y is better, but if you're trying to get rid of X and Y, it's bad phrasing because lacking is a word with negative connotations (at least in American English).
    – Peter Shor
    Oct 24, 2012 at 3:45
1

Either of these is better than what you have, since they are no longer ambiguous:

  1. The widget does not crack or cause deformities.
  2. The widget causes neither cracks nor deformities.

And yes, those mean different things. Your sentence is very unclear, so it could go either way. I don’t know which sense you intended.

You could even use nor in place of or in the first one if you wanted:

  • The widget does not crack nor cause deformities.
Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    I think you misread OP's first example. The last word is "cracks", which can only be interpreted as a second (plural) thing the widget doesn't cause. There's nothing to suggest it could be a verb, and that the widget itself is being claimed not to crack.
    – FumbleFingers
    Oct 24, 2012 at 2:39
  • 1
    The widget neither cracks nor causes deformities is better style, IMHO. Regardless of whether this is or isn't what the OP wants to say.
    – user21497
    Oct 24, 2012 at 2:42
  • Thank you for the suggestions. However, I am unable to change the wording because the client insists on using the phrase “without” (or “free from” or “lacking”), which are in reference documents. And so I was asked if “without X or Y” means the same as “having no X and having no Y”. The client asked me whether total negation requires “Or” after expressions such as “without”. If such phrases do not unambiguously result in negation, perhaps I can explain that to the client, but changing the wording is not an option.
    – curious-proofreader
    Oct 24, 2012 at 3:01
  • 1
    Note that "lacking" is a word with negative connotation, so "lacking X and Y" would be seen as a bad thing. On the other hand, "free from X and Y" would be seen as a good thing. So if you were talking about food, you would generally say "lacking nutrients" and "free from contamination", and not the other way around. The word without is neutral.
    – Peter Shor
    Oct 24, 2012 at 3:49

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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