4 ms·
The thing is, almost every time when people put negative conditions (that you must not meet in order to qualify for something else) every condition is disqualif
by deadbeeves 3y ago
The thing is, almost every time when people put negative conditions (that you must not meet in order to qualify for something else) every condition is disqualifying, and that idea is expressed with "or". Which of these sounds more natural to you?
"You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, and bacon."
"You can have some of my pie if you don't have eggs, sausages, or bacon."
To me the second one sounds more natural. The first one sounds very unusual. I can have pie only on the condition that I don't have all three things? Okay... It sounds so strange because no one ever says that. I can't see someone using "and" there if they didn't mean it, because it's such an unusual grammatical construction.
- thehappypm 3y agoThe first case makes sense to me. These both are perfectly valid but mean different things: You can call me for a ride if you are drunk and there are no taxis available. You can call me for a ride if you are drunk or there are no taxis available.
- deadbeeves 3y agoNote that I didn't say that either didn't make sense or was grammatically incorrect, just that it sounds very strange. I don't think your examples are that great, since you're listing requirements that "you" must meet to call for a ride, not things that disqualify "you" from calling for a ride. Also, using both "and" and "or" with lists of two items is common. Both "don't drink and drive" and "don't drink or drive" are plausible pieces of advice. "Twelve hours prior to the surgery don't drink, eat, and take any medicine" would be a very strange indication; it almost sounds like I'm being not to drink or eat, but to take any medicine of my choosing?