He is our only innovative and knowledgeable employee.

< Previous | Next >

azz

Senior Member
armenian
He is our only innovative and knowledgeable employee.
He is our only innovative, knowledgeable employee.

Do these mean that our other emplyees are neither innovative nor knowledgeable or do they mean that none of them is BOTH knowledgeable and innovative (he is the only one who has both qualities)?
 
  • Focalist

    Senior Member
    European Union, English
    azz said:
    He is our only innovative and knowledgeable employee.
    He is our only innovative, knowledgeable employee.

    Do these mean that our other emplyees are neither innovative nor knowledgeable or do they mean that none of them is BOTH knowledgeable and innovative (he is the only one who has both qualities)?
    No difference: "our other employees are neither knowledgeable nor innovative" precludes the possibilty of any of them being both knowledgeable and innovative. (If all of our employees lack either left hands or right, none of them can be said to be ambidextrous.)

    The reality, of course, is that management has not the slightest idea of employees' true abilities. "Our only innovative, knowledgeable employee" is, in fact, no more than the company's biggest arse-licker...:)

    F
     

    azz

    Senior Member
    armenian
    Thanks, but I don't get your answer.
    Do the sentences imply that the others are neither one or the other, or does it imply that they aren't both one or the other?

    (As far as grammar is concerned. As far as the real world is concerned, you are right, the guy is an arse-licker!)
     

    Nick

    Senior Member
    USA, English
    These sentences require both things. They imply that he is the only employee with both of these characteristics.

    "He is our only innovative and knowledgeable employee." == He is the only employee that is both innovative AND knowledgeable
     

    Focalist

    Senior Member
    European Union, English
    azz said:
    Thanks, but I don't get your answer.
    Do the sentences imply that the others are neither one or the other, or does it imply that they aren't both one or the other?

    (As far as grammar is concerned. As far as the real world is concerned, you are right, the guy is an arse-licker!)
    Sorry to confuse you, but glad that you share my Weltanschauung!

    What I was (clumsily) trying to say is that if all the other employees are neither A nor B, then none of them could be said to be both A and B. The possibility remains, of course, that some of the non-arse-lickers are either A or B (but I don't think the employer cares about that).

    Strictly speaking, both sentences imply that Mr Arse-Licker is the only employee to exhibit both A and B -- but then again the concepts "employer" and "logic" seldom inhabit the same bed...

    F (What, me? Bitter? Whatever makes you say that?)
     

    azz

    Senior Member
    armenian
    You got me there!
    Realistic, but a bit too sharp for me when it comes to words!
     
    Hello!!!

    Among the enormous amount of threads on "and" that are stored in the forum archieve, this one is probably the closest. As in post #1 here, I would also like to ask you about the possibility of omitting "and" in a sentence:

    I like apples, pears, and grapes
    I like apples, pears, grapes

    Is it always neccesary to put "and" before the last homogeneous part of a sentence?

    Thanks!!!
     

    panjandrum

    Lapsed Moderator
    English-Ireland (top end)
    In such cases "and" is expected.
    If you choose to omit it, be sure you know why and that your readers will understand why. Otherwise they will think you have made a mistake.
    One possible reason is to create a moment of suspense - caused by the sense that the sentence has not ended after "grapes".
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top