Jeremy Clarkson super-injunction?

Last edited:
When you've had Imran Khan, who else would you turn to but Jeremy Clarkson?
 
"I'll put down a 'VW' for 'very wet' ".
 
It does give a new meaning to the term "lube job".
 
Hi GerFix - certainly not denying the fall in standards of the English language amongst the English, but I'm not sure I'm with you on this one.
<snip>
We wish to negate the assertion so we could say:

Netither the pictures nor the injunction exist

<snip>

Hi Crash,

Neither/nor is the combination that should have used if she wished to deny both allegations. Either is a singular adjective, whereas neither is a pleural adjective.

By using either/or the writer implies that (in this case) either the pictures do not exist or the injunction does not exist ........ that is one or the other do not exist, not that both do not exist.

Neither/nor isn't a double negative .. it is a pleural negative, tying the two subjects to the same assertion (in this case, the denial). By using either/or the writer is excluding one of the subjects from the assertion.

I'm feeling dizzy now.

Sincerely,
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
 
Hi Crash,

Neither/nor is the combination that should have used if she wished to deny both allegations. Either is a singular adjective, whereas neither is a pleural adjective.

By using either/or the writer implies that (in this case) either the pictures do not exist or the injunction does not exist ........ that is one or the other do not exist, not that both do not exist.

Neither/nor isn't a double negative .. it is a pleural negative, tying the two subjects to the same assertion (in this case, the denial). By using either/or the writer is excluding one of the subjects from the assertion.

I'm feeling dizzy now.

Sincerely,
Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells

Sorry, Gerfix old son, but Crash is right. The sentence is perfectly correct as it stands - I don't have either the time or the energy to explain why or, if you like, I have neither the time nor the energy to explain why (see what I did there?). The English language is safe with us - at least for now.
 
^ No, I think you will find I am correct. What you are saying is you either don't have the time or you don't have the energy. You aren't saying both conditions apply. This is why we have both either/or and neither/nor .. they aren't the same thing.
 
Hi GerFix - many thanks for your kind clarification - and thanks to Amie8 too for jumping in.

I hesitate to pollute this thread further but seeing as (a) it's the off season for top gear and (b) other stuff in this thread is puns and twitter comments I hope Gibby won't mind if we continue just a little while longer.

I understand your point is that "either ... or" is an exclusive disjunction, an XOR, that is "either A or B but not both"

Brooding on this for a few minutes it did seem you have a good point, and a quick surf for Internet concensus tended to support you but it was hard to find anyone willing to be definitive in your favour.

You may choose either the soup or a salad - Clearly A or B but not both
The light bulb is on or off - ditto
Fred is either at the bank or at the store - three for you

So how to get an inclusive or? One source suggested "or" for inclusive, "either ... or " for exclusive

OK lets try it:

You may choose the soup or a salad - Hmmm, not seeing the distinction
The light bulb is on or off - Don't think many would have problems with that

Where things start to drift back the other way seems to me to be around what I will call qualification:

You may apply for this job if you have either a Microsoft certification or equivalent industry experience - Don't think I would refuse to interview someone with both the certification and experience. It seems to me that pictures/injunction fall into this sort of "qualification" category - perhaps where the qualification is that of being a "naughty girl".

Perhaps you would argue this is where "either" should be dropped for the or to be inclusive, but notes above suggest to me we can't rely on that as a rule rigorously.

I enjoyed taking a look into this so thanks for your comments.

As for a conclusion, I am willing to accept this is a grey area. Unless, of course, you either provide a better reference than I have found, or put a gun to my head. Oh, and I do apologise, in deference to your position, I am happy to clarify I will also concede if you both provide a reference and put a gun to my head.

Cheers, Crash
 
^ Thanks Crash. Getting back to her statement (or at least that in the article). The literal interpretation is that; she is either denying that the pictures exist or she is denying there is an injunction, but not both.

This choice of grammar may be deliberate to give the cursory impression that there is no truth in the rumour, whilst not openly lying about the fact that it is true that either pictures exist or an injunction exists.

Reference:
Do the following statements mean the same thing?
1. You are either with me or against me.
2. You are neither with me nor against me.
 
You know, when I read this latest story, for some reason I had an entirely different conversation between Jeremy and Francine go through my head:

Jeremy: *flustered* Sweetheart, don't listen to anything the media is saying. I promise you I have not been having an affair with any of those women!

Francine: *patient smile* "It's okay, I believe you dear. I know you're not having an affair.

Jeremy *relieved* Well good. I'm not like that, you know that. No matter how many women throw themselves at me all the time. You can trust me.

Francine: *rolls her eyes and is bemused* Of course dear. I know that. And I trust you to *snickers* fend off those sad sad women. It's cool.

Jeremy: *a bit confused* Well yeah, thats what I meant. And they do you know. All the time. Tons of women every day. But I'm the good guy.

Francine: *pats him on the head* Yes dear, I know...the tons of women who are all wanting you. It's okay, like I said. I know you're safe. *starts reading a book*

Jeremy: *Flustered and man-hurt* Well, just so you know, I mean, I'm not saying I would ever really have an affair, but...um..if I had wanted to, or had a moment of weakness...it would be easy. I mean look at me. I'm rich and I have a Lamborghini! Tons of women want me! *puts his chest out*

Francine: *still reading her book and not looking up* Yes dear....lots of women want you, you're such a beast...rich and all of that, king of the... Oh look! A sale at Asda this Friday. We should go... Um, what were you saying again?

Jeremy: *shrinking a bit with his chin wibbling* You don't believe me! I mean, not the part about cheating on you! I'd never do that sweetheart! But I could! Um..if I dunno...my manly testosterone was surging, and I had a few beers...all out in a lonely place....and a hot car...and some lady friend...and...you know...It could happen!

*stamps his foot like a 3 year old* I wouldn't want it to happen of course, but...yunno... And you don't believe me!

Francine: *coddling him like an angry child* You sold the Lambo dear. Because it was faster than you could handle in front of your friends. And yes, I believe you about the bit that if you wanted to have an affair, then you would...but *checks her schedule* You have to be here on Monday, there on Tuesday...remember to smile. Then here again by Friday. I'll schedule some time for us to walk on the beach....*trails off still reading Jeremy his schedule for the next 3 weeks*


Jeremy: *sniffs* Why wont anyone believe that I could have an affair with a beautiful woman if I wanted to? *sniffs* I could...*kicks a rock over with his toe* I've seen it done in the movies....and what? *listens* Yes dear! I'll be right there dear! Only take me a minute dear...
 
I hate to be an arse, but twitter has been commenting about this:
Twitter.

You ask whether a celeb rumour posted on Twitter is worrying. I hate to be an arse, but what planet are you from?
 
^ Thanks Crash. Getting back to her statement (or at least that in the article). The literal interpretation is that; she is either denying that the pictures exist or she is denying there is an injunction, but not both.

This choice of grammar may be deliberate to give the cursory impression that there is no truth in the rumour, whilst not openly lying about the fact that it is true that either pictures exist or an injunction exists.

Reference:
Do the following statements mean the same thing?
1. You are either with me or against me.
2. You are neither with me nor against me.

Ooh, I love a bit of grammar pedantry, me. I know where there are whole forums devoted to it. I'll spend this evening curled up with my copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage (available at all good bookstores) and leave it at that.
 
i'm seriously surprised that this is even worth any time and space. anyone can make any comment on twitter. i could go on there now and say 'Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button are a lot more than just team-mates'. There's no evidence to support this twitter user's claim and the media should realise that twitter statements aren't worth the ink that would be used to print them out on paper.
drop it, move on and there's more important things to be bothered about.
 
The way people obsess with "celebrity gossip" makes me sick.

Do you guys really have nothing better to do with your time? Get a hobby.
 
i'm seriously surprised that this is even worth any time and space. anyone can make any comment on twitter. i could go on there now and say 'Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button are a lot more than just team-mates'. There's no evidence to support this twitter user's claim and the media should realise that twitter statements aren't worth the ink that would be used to print them out on paper.
drop it, move on and there's more important things to be bothered about.

Ah but...the general concensus is that it's not an individual, but a media organisation out to undermine the whole super-injunction system, which makes it quite an interesting story. As far as Clarkson is concerned though, it's a load of gonads and not really worth discussing on this forum.
 
Top