Who are us?

Please believe me -- two posts in a row mentioning Katie Couric shouldn't be taken as a sign of a new direction for this blog.

In the last post I mentioned the Ridger's bewilderment regarding a recent statement made by Couric. And the perplexity is reasonable. Couric mentioned a problem that "could affect every one of us - and our loved ones." -- which leads the Ridger to pose the reasonable question: "Our loved ones aren't 'one of us'?"

Well are they? It might depend on what Couric what trying to say. Here's how her comment doesn't make sense:

"[this problem] could affect every one of us -- and our loved ones." ...because it's possible that each of us will be affected in manner.1 by the problem. And it's also possible that the people we love will be affected in manner.1 by this problem.

So because Couric says "every one of us" this reading runs into the problematic hedging by "and our loved ones" disrupting what "every one" means or who "us" includes. The use of the first person plural inclusive us might seem to include everyone including those who are not watching the show. If that's the case why does Couric add "loved ones" as a necessary 'other' not covered by the previous statement?

Here's how the statement might make sense:
"[this problem] could affect every one of us -- and our loved ones." ...because it's possible that each of us producing or watching this broadcast will be affected in manner.1 by the problem. And it's also possible that the people we love (who are not producing or watching this broadcast) will be affected in manner.1 by this problem.

Couric's use of "us" isn't then universal. Nor do we always expect it to be. It's inclusive but we're still able to draw a line between us and them. There's exclusivity in this one. It draws the line between viewers/producers and those loved ones who are not viewing or producing the show. It sounds a little elitist. Why draw the line? And where exactly is it drawn? This explanation -- tho it might work -- doesn't work for me. And considering that there is undoubtedly a circle of people who are neither watching/producing the show nor have any loved ones watching/producing the show...are they safe?

Another way it might make sense:
"[this problem] could affect every one of us -- and our loved ones." ...because every person can possibly be affected in manner.1 by the problem. And it would then happen that the people they love will be affected in manner.2 by this problem.

This requires a switch. If I'm the viewer I've just been told that I could be affected in a primary way by this problem -- say I'll stub my toe and cry out in pain. That first hand experience is manner.1. And of course because I'm such a crybaby Buffy has to put up with my whining. She's affected in manner.2 -- the secondhand effect. And if Couric's "every one of us" is truly a universally inclusive group that means that even tho I'm the one watching the show it's also possible that Buffy will stub her toe and cry out in pain manner.1 and I will have to put up with her soft and adorable whimpering manner.2.

This one makes the most sense to me because of Courics use of "and" coordinating the two claims. That it could affect every one of us - and our loved ones. If the effect was the same for both us and our loved ones I would expect or to coordinate the possibilities. That would be a complementary coordination that indicates the same effect going in either place -- the "and" might indicate a simultaneous coordination of people being affected at the same time -- but not necessarily in the same way.

So within this claim I the viewer am at once one of us AND a loved one.

That's one way to double their Nielsen ratings.

Either or neither

In The Merchant of Venice Lorenzo says:

The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not mov'd with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems, and spoils;

In the second line Shakespeare has chosen to break one of those rules that often incites the grammar dogs to sic. He starts the line with "Nor" when there has been no "neither" to set up the form. The "neither...nor..." construction may be more strictly enforced than "either...or..." because of questions using "or" that can't use "either" without sounding grossly awkward or being ungrammatical.

"Are you going to pay with check or with cash?"
"Can you handle that or should I help you lift it?"

When "or" is used without "either" as in

Shut up or I'll give you something to cry about.

some might argue that the "either" is understood and left out. Much as the [you] is left out of imperatives like "[x] Close the window." In that case we would have a null [either] in

[x] Shut up or I'll give you something to cry about.

I've never looked at the syntax of these statements so I'm just guessing here. "Either" would be perfectly grammatical in the sentence which supports a shared structure.

Where would we put the [x] in the questions? Let's move the copula back into it's declarative position in the check/cash question and use the "either".

You are going to pay either with check or with cash.

When I move the copula over for the question the either sounds questionable to me.

?Are you are going to pay either with check or with cash

What keeps it from being completely ungrammatical is the possibility that it becomes a yes/no question conditional on only one of the payment methods being true. Ie paying with check gets a yes and paying with cash also gets a yes.

But we reanalyze the sentence, remembering to account for every underlying representation (UR) missing from the surface representation (SR). Our underlying form would then be

[Either [you are going to pay with check] or [you are going to pay with cash]]

The declarative form of "can you handle that or should I help you?" helps us to see this UR.

[Either [you can handle that] or [I should help you]]

We see then that while "or" always stays in place "either" usually doesn't. The following still sounds awkward to me but not ungrammatical.

Either are you going to pay with check or are you going to pay with cash?

This emphatic use of either sounds like a demand for a decision. Something along the lines of "either come inside or close the door" when a lollygagging visitor lets the elements into the house.

The "either" sounds almost ungrammatical in the following:

??Either can you handle that or should I help you?

Apparently either doesn't really like sitting next to a raised copula. But "neither" almost always does. Even in a declarative the "neither" seems to pull the copula forward.

You are neither smart nor funny. cf Neither are you smart nor (are you) funny.

We note here that simply raising the copula does not create a yes/no question. We also have to put the "neither" after the subject to form the question.

Are you neither smart nor funny?

And at this point I realize that the post is getting long, and I'm getting farther away from an explanatory analysis. I would keep writing, but I started this post thinking about pursuing double negatives. Now that I've let that fish off the hook I'm going to reel in and recast later. Any syntacticians who can contribute to some actual understanding are welcome to point out my mistakes and oversights.