Talk:And/or

Just a question:

Jim will not eat cake and pie.----Does it suggest that Jim will not eat 2 things, but he may eat cake, or pie (one of the two options)?

Jim will not eat cake or pie.----Can I interpret it as, Jim will not eat any of the two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha2006 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 March 2007

Just an answer:

Does it matter in this context? The point is that neither is resolved by using "Jim will not eat cake and/or pie". English already provides for avoiding ambiguity without introducing the unhelpful "and or or" construction. You could say "Jim may eat either cake or pie" or "Jim may eat neither cake nor pie".

mouse 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHudson00 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 25 May 2007

This article makes me want cake, pie, and brownies. I hate dieting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.145.19.66 (talk) 09:31, 21 June 2007

After the 2nd paragraph establishes that "and/or" is problematic, and the 3rd paragraph states an argument for using it, the 4th paragraph counters that argument by saying two things: (a) that either, as a conjunction, appropriately indicates that the choices are mutually exclusive; and (b) that it is not necessary to use either as a conjunction when the function of "or" is clear from the context. So far, so good.

However, don't we still need to suggest how to indicate that the choices are not mutually exclusive for cases in which the function of "or" is not clear from the context? In other words, the absence of either does not tell us that the writer would invariably have used either (or some similar indicator) if the choices had been mutually exclusive.

I'm not suggesting that this article needs to be a complete grammar lesson on this subject. I simply think that we've left one logical part of the argument unsettled.

--rich<Rich Janis 03:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)>

Does the other need to indicate that the choices are mutually exclusive? I put together a quick comparison/explanation here:

http://www.geocities.com/thorin.geo/and_or_invalid.html

It's not as if we can expect authors to write "and/exclusive or". 198.103.96.11 14:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So much for Geocities! I wonder what 198.103.96.11 was saying. Anyway, I agree with Rich Janis - using 'and/or' eliminates ambiguity in cases where a phrase might be interpreted as containing an exclusive 'or'. So does 'x or y or both', but that uses a whole extra word to do it. Much worse than that are cases where you want to tell someone they can choose between one or more of several options - 'You may eat cake, pie, brownies or any two of the three, or all of them.'

I'm not disputing the aesthetic case against 'and/or', but I'm not seeing the case for the descriptions (attributed to uncited 'judges') "accuracy-destroying symbol," and "meaningless." In the absence of a known convention to always interpret 'or' in its inclusive sense, in the absence of 'either', it increases the accuracy and/or terseness of certain phrases. --Oolong (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Another question: Doesn't and/or mean "and or or"? It sounds very bad so you eliminate the first "or" and make it a forward slash (because they are occasionally used in place of a "or", are they not?). My point is that if you said "You can take Jenny and or or Matthew" shouldn't it technically make sense jut as "You can take Jenny and/or Matthew" does? 124.149.115.182 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not merge

Do not merge it. It's an outstanding linguistic phenomenon not directly related to logic and mathematics. --ssr 06:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

XOR

I've heard the term XOR used, like the Logic Gate 86.42.137.48 16:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

XOR is short for eXclusive OR is obscure enough and lacking clarity, that the first thing you would need to do would be to expand and explain it anyhow. one would be better to say "one or the other or both" as it is a very simple and very clear construction unlikely to confuse even those who don't have English as their first language. And/or simply doesn't read well, the excessive punctuation can be considered to read as "and or or" and it flows poorly when you try to read it aloud. -- 86.47.161.201 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

delete this sentence?!

It is particularly damaging in legal writing, in addition to being generally sloppy writing, because a bad faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits him, the "and" or the "or." [2]

To me, this sounds like a (referenced, yes, thank you :o)) very poor argument because it assumes without any rational basis that "pick[ing] whatever suits him" should be contrary to the contracting parties. Given that the case for and against "and/or" is clear without it, I'd suggest to simply delete the sentence. Quite apart from the fact that the sentence portrays a contended opinion ("damaging", "sloppy") as referenced fact.

And please don't argue with me about whether or not the sentence is right in condemning "and/or"... because I don't really care. In Wikipedia, I care more about bad arguments than about the opinions they may [try to] support... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't find the argument at all convincing, and I don't have the resources to check whether the cited article even backs up the claim in question. I've already kicked this article enough for now, though - if anyone else wants to revisit this article, that could be good. --Oolong (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Weasel Words! Gah!

"Others argue that in a very legalistic society, the word "or" is no longer sufficiently clear, because it may indicate choices that are mutually exclusive"

This is the very thing that people mock Wikipedia for, especially those on Encyclopedia Dramatica. This sentence needs to be changed to avoid weasel words. Zell65 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Uses of 'and/or' on wikipedia

Should it be allowed? Or change it to just 'or'? Lightblade (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think they should all be changed. Wikipedia's Grading Scheme and Copy Edit templates used to include an "and/or" I got them to change :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Grading_scheme#Grading_Template_Needs_Copy_Editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Copyedit#Copyedit_Tag_needs_copy_editing

206.47.249.251 (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think they should all be change, and preferably there should be automated systems that help users conform to this and other simple elements of style. and/or is a weasel word, or at least a terribly indecisive and inarticulate grammatical construction. the sooner it goes the better, it is just one of those terribly pretentious phrases some people like to "utilize" to make themselves seems smarter. "Keep it simple stupid" is a much harder principle to apply. Ideally there would be a lot more overlap between "Simple English" wikipedia, the divergence is a testament to just how convoluted and unclear most of the writing in wikipedia can be. -- 86.47.161.201 (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

History??

When did it first start appearing? I mysteriously found it in Hesse's Glass Bead Game. I'm curious of coinage, and what was thought about it when it emerged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.255.14.227 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary has a quotation from 1855. However, that doesn't mean it was common at that time. 217.140.96.21 (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

POV

This article seems to have a definite bias against and/or. Many people though are quite happy with using it.

The article says "Some grammarians have pointed out that the phrase is redundant, since the word or logically and grammatically encompasses the same meaning."

I don't know that this is true. The article uses examples with lists of three, but let's simplify with just two items.

If I say "Fred will eat an orange or an apple," I think that would generally be understood by most English speakers (or at least most American English speakers) to mean that Fred will eat either an orange or an apple, but not both. To get the and/or meaning without using "and/or," I would have to say "Fred will eat an orange or an apple, or both," which is longer.

With lists of three or more, it becomes even more complicated. There I can't use "both," since "both" is just for two. I could say "Fred will eat an orange, an apple, or a melon, or all three." But technically, that would mean that he will either have one of the fruits or all three of them, but excludes the possibility of having two out of the three. Then to be clear I would have to use a really cumbersome construction like "Fred will eat one or more of the following fruits:"

So all and all, even if "and/or" isn't the prettiest, it's often a lot better than the alternative!

-Helvetica (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum, the tone of the article is POV. I have tried to correct some of the excesses and provide some citations. Any opinions should be backed by citations - including yours, Helvetica. The onus is on you to find them. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article is a moron with a chip on the shoulder

As anyone with half a brain cell should be able to tell, it is not "and/or" which is ambiguous or a "lazy construct"; it's the English language itself that's fucking sloppy and ambiguous! English does not make a distinction between OR (i.e. inclusive or) and XOR (i.e. exclusive or). In fact "or" in English sometimes means XOR, and sometimes means OR. So basically, "or" means "OR or XOR, depending on how well you can read the author's mind"! How messed up is that?

If such a logical quagmire doesn't meet your needs, you should be able to specify whether you are referring to OR or XOR. In the case of XOR, you can use "either" instead of "or", but what about when you really mean OR? Well, the _only_ concise way of expressing OR that English allows is by means of "and/or". Try avoiding using "and/or" without compromising the explicitness of its meaning and you end up with convoluted constructions, such as the ones Helvetica already pointed out below.

TL;DR: this article sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.197.224.224 (talk) 20:42, February 19, 2012

I've tried to make it a bit less terrible by making it clearer that not all authorities - even legal authorities - insist that it is some kind of inherently ambiguous monstrosity used only by idiots. --Oolong (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a professional technical editor (for over 10 years), I feel the article in its current state is rather too kind. In the best case it is an attempt to save a few characters, but most of the time it is a cover for sloppy writing and ofttimes sloppy thinking. Actually, I think that much of problem is due to the abuse of the virgule, though that wasn't mentioned in this article. I don't want to sound defiant, but I feel like defying anyone to name a smaller source of greater confusion than the little slash. (I wanted to give the article a favorable rating, but the rating box is missing for some reason?) Shanen (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me the only source of ambiguity in uses of 'and/or' is the sloppy use of commas. --Oolong (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do want to point out that Merriam-Webster's Collegiate uses, as an example of the construction, "<language comprehension and/or production — David Crystal>". Insofar as David Crystal is one of the most lucid and thoughtful writers about language, I find the idea absurd that his writing and/or his thinking could be sloppy. I respect your experience as a technical editor, but I really think this is a case of outright prescriptivism vs. perfectly standard and comprehensible casual language use. Tahnan (talk) 07:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note that original research is not usable for this article, and neither is Wikipedia's own stance. Anyways, the varying cited views should not cause the article to appear to take a stance either way. 8ty3hree (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

@Tahnan: "I find the idea absurd that his writing and/or his thinking could be sloppy" - I think you have just provided an excellent example of one of the other problems it causes, which is ugly redundancy. You could have just said "or" and you would have conveyed the same meaning, but better. It is impossible to imagine that you could have ever meant that it would be absurd for either to be sloppy, but not absurd if BOTH were sloppy. Language does not follow strict logical patterns - that just isn't how people communicate. This is why no one uses "and/or" in speech or normal prose - it simply isn't necessary. If people can come up with reputable sources endorsing the use of and/or, they should be included in this article, but I doubt there will be too many because most people who think hard about the subject tend to agree that it's awful. Westmorlandia (talk) 23:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that wider use of "and/or" can be classified as a "courtroom escape", along with colloquial non-official use of "not guilty" and "abovementioned" and suchlike. I have seen it suggested that French "avec" = 'with' started as Latin "apud hoc" which became colloquial and replaced Latin "cum" = 'with'. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

In the Context of Logic

I am a native English speaker and have a background as a logician ... I find nontechnical uses of either 'or' or 'and/or' confusing; perhaps someone who understands both formal logic and the 'everyday' English usage could add a section exploring the connection between the interpretation of 'and/or' and formal logic. In logic, 'He will eat cake or pie.' is satisfied by all of the following: 'He eats cake (and does not eat pie).', 'He eats pie (and does not eat cake).', 'He eats (both) cake and pie.'; this seems to deviate from the interpretation that nonlogicians give to the original English sentence. As mentioned supra, there is a logical operator 'xor' satisfying (for arbitrary P, Q): P xor Q == (P and (not Q)) or (Q and (not P)) (Equivalently (in Classical logic): (P or Q) and (not (P and Q)) ... It seems that nontechnical English interprets 'or' as denoting 'xor' ... Perhaps, then, the denotation of 'and/or' is (logical) 'or'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:7DC0:0:15A0:129F:81A:6C2 (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources for balance

I have tried to find sources that provide a more balanced view of and/or, but it is very difficult. Those who like "and/or" don't seem to have any need to talk about it. There are several sources on usage that simply use and/or without comment; and then there is Webster's new explorer guide to English usage. Springfield, MA: Federal Street Press. 2004. ISBN 189285967X., which in the snippet view starts out with ... "And/or has established itself as an acceptable ..." (the rest is hidden). This Google Ngram search is intriguing: "and/or" is effectively never used up to about 1915, after which its frequency of use increases relative to "or" until it starts to level off around 1990. Unfortunately, that is original research. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

If we want to work on NPOV, we should try to find reliable sources (both linguists/philosophers who think there is a linguistically compelling reason to use "and/or" (as opposed to a bare "or"), as well as writers who defend it from a rheotrical/aesthetic perspective) defending the use of the conjunction. While they're quite funny, it's pretty hard to square the quotes from the judges with NPOV. Steeletrap (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated above, I did try to find those sources and came up short. I'm still hoping that someone will have access to that Webster's guide. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I did some thinking on "and/or" when reading this article and it's come to my mind that people who want to use this conjunction might actually mean "any" in one of several forms. Does anyone have an opinion on whether it's worthwhile using "any" instead of this grammatical misrepresentation in certain instances?

If so, would someone please add an alternate words section into the article if consensus can be reached as to whether such a section is needed? BrickVoid612 (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

As with all the other issues, it all comes down to sources. Can you find any? RockMagnetist (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean that equal weight has to be given to both sides of any debate. While it is possible that "those who like "and/or" don't seem to have any need to talk about it", it is equally possible that most people who think hard about and do write about it decide that they don't like it. If that is the case, the imbalance should be reflected by an article that is generally critical. Westmorlandia (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

More than two subjects

I'd like this article to address the use of "and/or" when talking about more than two subjects. For instance, it mentions using "x, y, or both", but that doesn't help for three subjects; "x, y, z, x and y, x and z, y and z, or all three" doesn't really roll off the tongue. I guess you could say "x, y, z, or any combination thereof" but I'd rather just say "x, y, and/or z". Really, we just need a word that implies inclusive or, or we should start using xor for exclusive ors and or for inclusive ors. (I don't see that happening :P) 216.80.69.8 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Be bold and do it. Adams and Kaye say (in the reference already cited in the article):

That said, in some contexts and/or is the most efficient way to incorporate into a provision the concept of "or both". An example: "Acme may sell widgets in the Roetown Store and/or one or more of any other discount stores that Acme opens in the Territory with the prior written approval of Widgetco, which approval Widgetco may not unreasonably withhold."

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The comma delineated list with an "and/or" is particularly awkward. It could be parsed a few different ways. For example, "please buy tea, coffee, wine and/or soda" -what does that even mean? The context or sentence structure should reveal whether or not the list is inclusive, exclusive or combinatorial. If inclusive it should read "Please buy a, b, c and d", if exclusive it should read "Please buy either a, b, c or d", if combinatorial- "Please buy any combination of a, b, c or d". Volunteer1234 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on And/or. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618100034/http://bartleby.com:80/64/C001/026.html to http://www.bartleby.com/64/C001/026.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

and/or at the end of a list

Do we have a citation for what "and/or" means at the end of a list? I think it is ambiguous but the lead paragraph says otherwise. There's a lot of ways to logically break down "he will eat a, b, and/or c". One combination is (A&B&C) OR (C). There's no logical reason that the "or" would apply between a and b. Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

In a list, the final conjunction is usually taken to apply to all commas in the list. UserTwoSix (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

IE "a,b, or c" = "a or b or c". "a,b, and c" = "a and b and c" so "a,b, and/or c" = "a and/or b and/or c" UserTwoSix (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Ambiguity

It is also sometimes unclear whether three possibilities are meant, or only two. The less ambiguous way of expressing three possibilities is to use ‘X or Y or both’, while in many contexts, just ‘ or’ will do perfectly. Finally, and/ or linking more than two items is to be avoided at all costs.

In two situations the ordinary sense of or does not accomplish everything we need. Both involve the level of exclusivity between the elements on either side of or. One comes up in the standard statement of punishment, “a $1,000 fine or a year in jail or both.” The other comes up when the choices are mutually exclusive. If that exclusivity is important to point out—if the judge must choose between a fine and jail, for instance—the writer may substitute but not both for or both in the previous example.  

--Backinstadiums (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Something's wrong with the first paragraph

Why is there a random closed parenthesis after "one or all"? Why is half of it in italics? Help! NyloFR (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a months-old botched edit. Undone. Nardog (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"orwith"?

I think "orwith" should be added as a proposed alternative.

Do people like it? Not the most, no. Is it popular? Certainly not. Is it still a proposal that has history, and has some usage? To a degree or two, yes.

In the word's defense, it lets you write "and/or" where you aren't allowed to use '/' — "andor" looks visually unappealing, and "or" should be exclusive.

I know, however, the submission will not be allowed because it's not popular *enough*. 2600:381:CBA0:2D89:A462:E0E1:218D:445B (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)