5

It seems that "senza A e B" is not acceptable in the Italian language, but "senza A o B" is.

Can anyone explain why?

As far as I can tell, I often hear people saying, for example:

Sono venuto senza giacca e cravatta.

Questi alimenti sono senza coloranti e conservanti.

Poverino, l'hanno operato senza bisturi ed anestesia.

Le strutture scolastiche campane sono ancore senza assistenza e servizi di trasporto per le persone diversamente abili.

Purtroppo moltissimi giovani sono senza laurea ed esperienza.

and so on.

Are all they wrong?

  • 4
    "Giacca e cravatta" is certainly an irreversible binomial (treccani.it/enciclopedia/…) so "senza giacca e cravatta" is correct because irreversible binomials are treated as one word. – user193 Dec 7 '13 at 20:42
  • I am wondering - maybe the cases you mention are all irreversible binomials (or at least meant to be such): "coloranti e conservanti", "bisturi ed anestesia", "assistenza e servizi", "laurea ed esperienza". – user193 Dec 7 '13 at 20:51
  • @random, interesting! I was not aware of this binomial 'rule' which applies here. So the question is what is binomial and what is not, though. – Kyriakos Kyritsis Dec 7 '13 at 20:52
  • 2
    I'm afraid that's widely arbitrary - I guess any of us is free to propose one: whether the proposed binomial will become of common use or not, that we can't know. Point is it can sound weird if, within a "senza A e B" structure, you treat two words as a binomial and that is not clearly perceived by the receiver of your message. As to the invariability of irreversible binomials, refer to the link above. – user193 Dec 8 '13 at 3:22
  • Yes, I think that "giacca e cravatta" is seen as a binomial and therefore is perceived as a single word, "giacca-e-cravatta": this is why "senza giacca e cravatta" is ok (but "senza giacca né cravatta" is anyway correct) – mau Dec 12 '13 at 8:32
2

I (politely) disagree with the statement: "that 'senza A e B' is not acceptable in the Italian language, but 'senza A o B' is." Overlooking the fact that the expression is commonly used, as you correctly reported, reason is the following: "e" and "o" are logical connectors so you could build equivalent statements manipulating the original one by means of logical rules. So cannot be true that, given two propositions P and Q, being P e Q not acceptable, P o Q is correct. This could seen this way:

NOT (P e Q) <=> NOT(P) OR NOT(Q)

This way we should have two equivalent assertions, the first not acceptable, the second perfectly acceptable. How this could be possible?

| improve this answer | |
  • The only exception I can think of is when (A AND B) is a binomial that cannot be inflected: "giacca e cravatta", "senza giacca e cravatta". – user193 Dec 11 '13 at 19:37
  • 5
    Unfortunately logic rules do not necessarily apply to languages. NOT(NOT(A)) == A but often in Italian NOT(NOT(A)) == NOT(A) (see italian.stackexchange.com/questions/1155/…) – nico Dec 12 '13 at 8:03
2

I'd say that neither of them is better than "né".
I think in English you would use "nor", right? (I went without a jacket nor a tie). This is much better translated as "né": "Ci sono andato senza giacca né cravatta".
(Just note that "ne" and né" are two different words).

| improve this answer | |
0

"Senza giacca e cravatta" is different from "senza giacca o cravatta" and it is correct in Italian language. You have just to understand if it means exactly what you want to say. It mean that you don't have both a jacket and a tie. Senza giacca o cravatta" means that you don't have even just one of them.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.