Seth,

With the standard correlative conjunctions, it's difficult to use the
first element of the pair without the second element either present or
recoverable from context -- that is, the minute I say "both," you're
strongly predisposed to expect an 'and' at some point. There are, of
course, simple phrases like "both of them," but I think traditional
grammar would treat that as shorthand for "both X and Y." If I hear
"both" without "of" after it, I'm surprised if there isn't an "and"
later. 

From one perspective, correlative conjunctions are a bit similar to
collocations like "wreak havoc"; the first part strongly signals a
second. The strength of the association between "both" and "and," etc.,
provided the grammarians who invented terms like "correlative
conjunction" a useful way out of a particular bind. Conjunctions in
traditional grammar are *defined* in terms of connecting two elements,
and without viewing the "both" as part of a single unit with "and,"
you'd be stuck trying to explain what it's doing there to begin with. If
"both..and," "either...or," and "neither...nor" are treated as single
elements, though, there's no problem.

With your example, there's not as much of a "predictive" quality to
'not' -- I don't really expect a 'nor' when I hear it. There is,
however, a clear parallel series in that sentence, and once the reader
or hearer notices that, "not...nor...but" are understood as a kind of
single scaffold for the rest of the sentence. It could be extended
indefinitely, though: "Not A, not B, not C, nor even D, but rather E."
Correlative conjunctions provide a scaffold, but it's a much more fixed
one. 

It might be useful to think of correlative constructions as lying at one
end of a scale of flexibility for parallel constructions. A full
correlative is almost fossilized; it's a parallel construction that's
become totally inflexible. Full literary parallel constructions are
highly flexible, so we can't really spot them as parallel until we get
to the second (or sometimes even the third) part. Your example is
something that's in between those two poles.

Bill Spruiell
Dept. of English
Central Michigan University


-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Katz, Seth
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 3:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: correlative conjunctions?

Dear Friends--
 
Consider the following sentences:

		Not by might, nor by power, but by spirit alone shall
all men live in peace.
		 
		We must aspire to heed the desires of our better angels,
for we have been born not to hate and hurt, but to love and serve.

Though they are not included on the orthodox lists of correlative
conjunctions, would it be reasonable to read "not . . . nor . . . but"
in the first sentence, and "not . . . but" in the second sentence as
correlative conjunctions? They seem to me to have strong 'correlating'
force--or am I just getting that from the parallelism?
 
I would appreciate your thoughts--
 
Seth
 
Dr. Seth Katz 
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Bradley University

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/