"No" before Start of "Or" Sentence

nobby said:

I realize this is a sentence fragment, but was wondering what the consensus is on the effect of a "No" at the start of a sentence that has two options, as below:

No noticeable changes of the state or going to the OFF-state​

My thinking is that the "No" is applied to both statements before and after the "Or", so if it were broken down even further:

No noticeable changes of the state
No going to the OFF-state​

Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

I think I'll have coffee with lunch today.



Otherwise, I beleive that the "No" does in fact modify both sides of the or statement. Whithout more context, however, it's hard to tell how the fragment could be phrased better.

It borders on futile to parse a sentence fragment. Is that how it will appear in your document? If so, you have more issues than the meaning of "no" to each part of your fragment.

In a complete sentence, "no" is typically partnered with "nor" to make the meaning perfectly clear.

For example:
There is no time-out after one minute, nor does the computer shut down.

The negative obviously applies to both parts of the above sentence. I suggest rewording your fragment into a complete sentence and using the effective partnership of no and nor.

nobby said:

No noticeable changes of the state or going to the OFF-state​

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter whether it's correct. It's unclear, which is an even greater sin.

How about this?

Neither noticeable changes of the state nor going to the OFF-state​

Click to expand...

I don't love that version either, though.

I'd have assumed it only applied to the first part, and would have expected a 'nor' construction if you wanted to show that both were negative. In speech you could do it with emphasis, but on the written page it's very unclear.

"No this or that" should mean "neither this nor that." And your dilemma makes me so glad I'm out of the technical writing field!

nobby said:

Thanks for the replies, guys. Unfortunately, the "sentence" is not mine; it is actually published in a technical document just as I have quoted it. There is some debate among my colleagues as to the intended meaning of the statement, and I am endeavoring to obtain a consensus as to what, at the very least, the statement means within the contexts of English grammar, regardless of its "intended" meaning.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any rule of grammar defining the scope of that "No". It's completely ambiguous, but I think I would read it as extending only to the first part. You have my sympathy.