And/Or/WTF

[eX.A.K.R.]

This is something that has bothered me for quite a while. It's something related to English and grammar, so if you hate Grammar Nazis, I suggest you run like hell now :O . And please pardon me if make some mistakes, for I'm not that much of a Grammar Nazi myself.

OK, anyway, here's the stuff. On subway trains here in Singapore, there is a rule of no eating and no drinking, and announcements are made periodically on board the trains reminding the passengers of this rule. What bothers me is the way the announcement is worded; it goes like this: "Eating or drinking is not allowed on the stations and trains. ...". However, as both eating and drinking is prohibited, shouldn't it be "Eating and drinking is not allowed..."? I understand that "and" is used to connect two subjects, while "or" presents either subject as an alternative, but only one of them applies. For example, "You can choose option A and B." implies that both options can be chosen, but "You can choose option A or B." implies that you can either take option A or option B, but you can't take both options at the same time.

So, should it be "Eating or drinking...", or "Eating and drinking..."? Someone please enlighten me.

 

[Kthleen]

Sadly, I'm no grammarian, but I'd say it's either "Eating and drinking are not allowed..." or "Neither eating nor drinking is allowed...." The way it is seems silly for the reasons you stated. We know what is meant by the statement, but I don't think it's technically correct.

 

[ChaosRocket]

I think that "eating and drinking are not allowed" would mean, literally, that you cannot eat AND drink. As in, if someone was only eating, but not drinking, they'd be able to say "But I'm NOT eating and drinking, I'm only eating! And it's "eating and drinking" that is prohibited!"

Technically the correct way would be to either "Neither eating nor drinking" or to say "eating and/or drinking is not allowed."

 

[the gadfly]

I think "Eating or drinking is not allowed on the stations and trains" is essentially grammatically correct with one error that has nothing to do with eating or drinking.

The sentence says there are two forbidden activities: You cannot eat and you cannot drink. You could be eating OR you could be be drinking OR you could be doing both. The sentence recognizes that both banned activities may not happen at the same time. The police could arrest you for eating OR for drinking OR for doing both.

Now, the grammar Nazi within me is going to emerge. The word "on" in the sentence should be replaced with the word "in". Passengers aren't "on" a subway station, they're "in" a subway station. While passengers can be "on" a subway train, since the sentence is coupled with a station, passengers are "in" a subway train.

 

[Murgatroyd]

I think that "eating and drinking are not allowed" would mean, literally, that you cannot eat AND drink. As in, if someone was only eating, but not drinking, they'd be able to say "But I'm NOT eating and drinking, I'm only eating! And it's "eating and drinking" that is prohibited!"

Here's the strict grammatical analysis of your view:

It's a matter of verb agreement. If it's "eating and drinking is not allowed", that only forbids the single action of "eating and drinking". If it's "eating and drinking are not allowed", that forbids both the action of "eating" and the action of "drinking".

 

[eX.A.K.R.]

... Now, the grammar Nazi within me is going to emerge. The word "on" in the sentence should be replaced with the word "in". Passengers aren't "on" a subway station, they're "in" a subway station. While passengers can be "on" a subway train, since the sentence is coupled with a station, passengers are "in" a subway train.

Now you say it, I cannot exactly remember whether it was "on" or "in", but if it was "on", then as what you said, this is another mistake they need to correct.

Back to the main problem. Murgatroyd's analysis points out another fatal flaw in the way the sentence is worded; if I took the message literally, it could mean I can choose not to eat or not to drink on the trains and in the stations. I could either be eating away without drinking, or drinking away without eating, and getting away with it, and it completely defeats the entire purpose and meaning of the announcement in the first place, since it could be taken to mean that you can eat and drink as long as you do don't do both at the same time, as contrary to the rule where all eating and drinking activities are completely disallowed.

However, even if there's nothing wrong with the "or" there, as the gadfly points out, "eating or drinking are not allowed..." still doesn't sound too right. Here, one action is being described (yes, there's two actions, but only one may apply in this case due to the use of "or"), and yet a plural form ("are") is being used, causing this sentence to be flawed again.

Taking the comments from this thread, I feel the announcement is best worded as: "Eating and drinking are not allowed in the stations and on the trains. ...". Feel free to correct me though, as I'm not too big an expert on this field.

 

[Zhen Lin]

Let's be mathematically precise about it.

"Eating and drinking are both members of both the set of activities not permitted on the train and the set of activities not permitted in the station. That is to say,

x ∈ y ∀ x: x ∈ { eating, drinking } ∧ y ∈ { activities not permitted in the station, activities not permitted on the train }

Thank you for your attention. This message brought to you by the department of pedantry and nitpicking."

Anyway. This ambiguity comes about because it seems that no natural language has a simple way of distinguishing between an exclusive disjunction (XOR to programmers) and a simple logical disjunction (OR).

 

[the gadfly]

Anyway. This ambiguity comes about because it seems that no natural language has a simple way of distinguishing between an exclusive disjunction (XOR to programmers) and a simple logical disjunction (OR).

That might be because natural language consists of more than words. You have to look at body language, tonal inflection and so forth. The written word, without any of those clues, is all too often open to interpretation. Any cultural, experential or other differences between the writer and the reader increases the difficulty.

However, even if there's nothing wrong with the "or" there, as the gadfly points out, "eating or drinking are not allowed..." still doesn't sound too right. Here, one action is being described (yes, there's two actions, but only one may apply in this case due to the use of "or"), and yet a plural form ("are") is being used, causing this sentence to be flawed again.

Huh? What I cited was your quote: ""Eating or drinking is not allowed on the stations and trains". I never mentioned the verb "are". Check my post. I think we're getting too many arguments from too many people entangled here. Let's try separating out who said what.

I think the least ambiguous and simplest way to say it is "Eating, drinking, or both are not allowed while in the station or aboard the train."

 

[eX.A.K.R.]

Let's be mathematically precise about it.

"Eating and drinking are both members of both the set of activities not permitted on the train and the set of activities not permitted in the station. That is to say,

x ∈ y ∀ x: x ∈ { eating, drinking } ∧ y ∈ { activities not permitted in the station, activities not permitted on the train }

Thank you for your attention. This message brought to you by the department of pedantry and nitpicking."

Anyway. This ambiguity comes about because it seems that no natural language has a simple way of distinguishing between an exclusive disjunction (XOR to programmers) and a simple logical disjunction (OR).

(firstly, I have been busy and distracted the past week, so sorry for the delay in replying)

Hmmm... reading up on Wikipedia on your mathematical approach does reveal some insights into the subject. On Wikipedia, it is stated that...

... In logic, however, the default meaning of the word "or" is the inclusive disjunction, ...

...which means, if we approach the statement using logic, it does allow for eating or drinking or eating and drinking to satisfy the condition. Yet, again, the function of "or" is not very clearly defined, and this is complicated by the existence of the verb "is" after "eating or drinking". Since "is" is singular, it describes only one action, so technically we can do both at the same time or kill off the grammar in the announcement. We could make do with "Eating or drinking is/are not allowed...", but this leads to too much being said. Using "and" makes it worse - both must be true to satisfy the condition, and then there's the question of whether to define "eating and drinking" as one set of activity or two, and the confusion goes on.

However, thinking on this line (mind the pun - we are talking about an announcement on a subway system), "Eating or drinking is not allowed..." does make some sense in some kind of way. It allows some flexibility in how eating and drinking could be defined; "eating" and "drinking" to be defined as one activity each, and "eating and drinking" as one set of activity together, and we are back onto where we started. Yet, is it possible in some way so that both meanings can be defined at the same time? I'm not a linguist, but I think this is not possible without some superfluous wording.

Huh? What I cited was your quote: ""Eating or drinking is not allowed on the stations and trains". I never mentioned the verb "are". Check my post. I think we're getting too many arguments from too many people entangled here. Let's try separating out who said what.

I think the least ambiguous and simplest way to say it is "Eating, drinking, or both are not allowed while in the station or aboard the train."

(remind me not to refer to too many users' posts in one shot again)

I was actually referring to Murgatroyd's post; I used your post to point out the "and/or" part of the announcement.

And before going back, let's say I remembered something wrongly; it should be "...is not allowed in stations and trains...", not "...is not allowed on stations and trains..." - I heard it the other day when I was commuting on the subway. My mistake and apologies.

Back to the subject; the way you worded it does sound like the best solution, but it does not sound too natural in a spoken way. It may be my own personal preference, though.

By the way, the Wikipedia article on the safety measures on my city's subway system has the full wording of the announcement: "Your attention please, eating or drinking is not allowed in stations and trains. Thank you for helping us to keep the stations and trains clean for the comfort of all passengers."