2

If "and so" connects predicates such that the second is the result of the first, do we need to repeat the same words in the second? For example,

It does not exist locally and so globally.

or

It does not exist locally and so does not exist globally.

Brian Donovan
  • 16,289
InGeometry
  • 431

5 Answers5

4

The inference in your example seems doubtful if not fallacious, but you asked about the grammar, specifically elliptical grammar. The second part of your second example leaves out only "It" but repeats everything else from the first part of the sentence, beyond substituting "globally" for "locally." That works. In your first example, the second part of the sentence leaves a good deal more out. That works fine too if you do not go too far with it; but you did go too far, in leaving out "not," which cannot well go without saying here: the clause's negativity does not survive ellipsis of the negative. I accordingly read the first example (before reading the second) as meaning the thing does not exist locally and so MUST exist globally, or at least elsewhere on the globe.

Brian Donovan
  • 16,289
0

You do not need to restate words except where the result is unclear. Your first example is not clear, because it leads the reader to think because a thing does not exist locally it must exist globally. I don't think you can generalize a rule about "and so", because in some cases, the result is something completely different than the cause. Ex: He stressed too much and so ended up in the hospital. The second phrase there is a result of the first but nothing can be omitted if it is to be understood.

FeliniusRex - gone
  • 2,304
0

Why not just rephrase it? Here:

Since it does not exist locally, it cannot exist globally.

This sentence expresses the causal relationship much more clearly.

njboot
  • 4,056
  • I suppose we can. But in some situations especially in math we need to do that. I mean , use "and so " or "and hence" – InGeometry May 31 '14 at 10:35
0

No, you don't need to repeat all the words except the auxiliary verb without the negative not. The sentence would be: It does not exist locally and so does globally. Look at more examples below:

  1. Men like travelling and so do women.
  2. Zachary was asleep when I came in and so was the puppy.

You can see how the auxiliaries do and was have been used in the sentences.

Oliver Mason
  • 3,244
ram
  • 1
  • 1
-2

I assume from the content of the sentence and from your handle that the context is mathematical writing. The original is clear enough to a mathematician. It means "It does not exist locally, and so not globally either". But since you have doubts, I suggest you use the wording I just gave. You do not have to repeat "does not exist".

Silvio Levy
  • 97
  • 1
    It's not “quibbling”; it's simple fact that the first sentence means the opposite of what it's supposed to say (if anything at all). Whether you're a mathematician should not influence the fact that it is only borderline grammatical and semantically wrong. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 10 '17 at 17:26
  • I'm sorry, but your second sentence is incorrect; every discipline uses shortcuts and you certainly do have to take into account your readership. As for your first sentence, call it what you will; the fact remains that the author's original is completely clear in context. – Silvio Levy Feb 10 '17 at 21:17
  • If the context is mathematical jargon. There's nothing to suggest it is. – Janus Bahs Jacquet Feb 10 '17 at 21:19
  • Janus -- I've edited my answer to reflect my thinking better. Thanks for calling my attention to the problems with the previous answer. – Silvio Levy Feb 10 '17 at 21:22