There are special designs with not and no particles.
1. The construction with the verb can and a double negative should be distinguished from the construction with the verb can with the preceding not and the repeating intensifying nor. Wed. examples in pairs: 1) He can't help but work. - He can neither work nor rest. 2) He can’t help but read, he can’t help but write, he can’t help but listen to music. - He can neither read, nor write, nor listen to music. The first clause of each pair states that the corresponding action is performed; in every second it is stated that it is impossible to carry out these actions.
2. Both the particle not and the particle neither can be included in constructions with pronominal words who, what (in different cases), how, where, where, from and so on.
a) Constructions with a particle are not included in exclamatory or interrogative-exclamation sentences, in which the particle is often present only, for example: Who didn't know this man! What didn’t delight him at this unusual exhibition! Who doesn't know this house? Why doesn’t my mind then enter into my slumber?(Hold). How can you not love your native Moscow!(Bar.). Wherever he has never been! Where did he turn!
Such sentences - negative in form - always contain an affirmation in content. ( Who didn't know this man! means "everyone knew this person"; Wherever he has never been! means “he had to go everywhere”).
b) Constructions with pronominal words and the particle neither (often with the preceding particle would) are always part of concessive subordinate clauses, for example: Whoever dies, I am the secret killer of everyone(P.). It’s a pity, but we’ll have to give it up. No matter what happens, you must remain calm. No matter who was asked, no one knows. Whatever the child enjoys, as long as he doesn’t cry(last). Whatever the answer, it is better than complete uncertainty. No matter how hard we tried, he could not distinguish iambic from trochee.(P.). Wherever he worked, he was appreciated everywhere. Everywhere I look, thick rye is everywhere!(Mike.). Whenever people come to him, he is always busy. No matter how much you look for the culprit in this matter, you still won’t find it.
3. Constructions are none other than and nothing more than, in which who and what can stand in oblique cases without prepositions and with prepositions ( none other than; nothing else but; none other than; with nothing more than etc.), should be distinguished from constructions that include the pronouns nobody and nothing (also in different cases without prepositions and with prepositions). Wed. the following examples in pairs: 1) This is none other than his brother. - No one else but his own brother can know this. 2) This is nothing more than the most blatant deception. - Nothing else interests him. 3) He met with none other than the president of the country. - He does not agree to meet with anyone other than the president. 4) He agreed to nothing less than to direct the entire work. - He will not agree to anything other than a leadership position. In each pair, the first sentence is affirmative, the second is negative.
4. Both the particle not and the particle neither are part of a number of stable combinations.
a) The particle cannot be part of complex unions: not yet; not that; not that... not that; not only but; not that (not)... but; not that (not so) to... ah. Examples: Wait until the transmission ends. Stop it or I'll scream! The weather is unpleasant: it is either raining or snowing. He is not only a poet, but also a composer. The relationship between them is not only friendly, but hostile. He will be not only ten minutes, but even an hour late. He is not that rude, but somewhat hot-tempered. She is not so angry, but indifferent.
The particle is not included in combinations close in meaning to particles: not at all, hardly not, far from, almost, almost, not at all, not at all, not at all, isn’t it, almost, almost; no more than, no more than, no more and no less than.
Many stable combinations, including those involving prepositional constructions of nouns, do not begin with a particle: not so hot (how, which one), not God knows (who, what, what, etc.), not in the arc, not in the spirit, not in the test, not in harmony, not in harmony, not in moderation, not in the rise , not an example, not a joy, not in oneself, not able to, not counting, not a sin, God forbid, not to fat, not to laugh, not to that, not to good, not to liu, not to the place, not the place, not in a hurry, not for a joke, not at the address; not by days, but by hours; beyond my strength, beyond my capabilities, beyond my gut, not at my ease, at the wrong time, out of hand, out of the question, out of work, out of luck and etc.
b) The particle is not a component of many stable combinations.
Combinations that are subordinate clauses in form: at all costs, no matter how you turn it, no matter how you throw it, no matter how you twist it, no matter where you throw it, no matter where it goes, no matter where it comes from, no matter what you say.
Combinations with initial single neither: nor aza, nor belmes, nor my God, nor boom-boom, nor in life, nor in life, nor in the tooth (foot), not in any way, in no way, in no case, not in one eye , not that much, not at all (to bet), not a penny, not a gugu, not for a penny (perish, abyss), not for a sniff of snuff (perish, abyss), not for anything, not a zgi, not a drop, not a penny, not a spear, not a crumb, not for anything, not to hell (not good), not for a hair, not for a penny, (who, what, which) not for a meal, not for an iota, not for a minute, not for a step, not foot, under no circumstances, not to do with anything, not a word, not an inch, not a move, not with anything (to be left), not a damn thing, not a damn thing, not a step(exclamation), not a big deal.
Combinations with repeating neither: neither be nor me, nor more nor less, neither back nor forward, neither think nor guess, neither mother nor father, nor warehouse nor in harmony, neither yes nor no, neither give nor take, neither two nor one and a half , neither bottom nor tire, neither day nor night, neither soul nor body, neither hot nor cold, neither alive nor dead, neither for anything nor for anything, neither skin nor face, nor stake nor yard, nor end nor edge, nor to village neither to the city, nor spoon nor bowl, neither less nor more, nor more nor less, neither moo nor calf, neither ours nor yours, neither answer nor greeting, nor rest nor time, neither peahen nor crow, neither pass nor pass, neither fluff nor feather, neither fish nor meat, neither matchmaker nor brother, nor light nor dawn, neither oneself nor people, nor one’s mood nor one’s harmony, nor hearing nor spirit, nor sleep nor spirit, come nor sit down, neither for no reason nor for no reason. , no shame, no conscience, neither this way nor that, neither here nor there, neither this nor that, neither this nor that, neither this nor that, neither here nor there, neither subtract nor add, neither mind nor heart , neither ear nor snout, neither cold nor hot, neither shaky nor rolly; more detailed combinations of the same structure: not a candle for God, not a poker for the devil, not in the city of Bogdan, not in the village of Selifan, not in a fairy tale, not to describe with a pen.
Note. For writing such combinations without a comma, see “Punctuation”, § 26, note 1.
0
Today, without knowledge of proverbs and catchphrases, one simply will not be accepted in decent society. Nowadays, some individuals try to appear smarter than they really are. Some people think that it is enough to impress everyone with their position in society, while others think that their intelligence will outshine the rest of their interlocutors... Add us to your bookmarks and you will always be aware of the most popular words. Today we will talk about such an ambiguous expression as Neither fish no meat You can read what this means a little later.
However, before I continue, I would like to show you some useful articles on the topic of phraseological units. For example, what does Pandora's Box mean? how to understand Leave in English; which means Man is a wolf to man; how to understand Reach the handle, etc.
So let's continue What does neither fish nor fowl mean??
Neither fish nor fowl- this is how they talk about something obscure, unnecessary, meaningless
Synonym for the expression Neither fish nor fowl: not God knows what; unimportant; not a fountain; not God knows what; not ah; the middle into half; not in the city of Bogdan or in the village of Selifan; unimportant; not particularly; not so hot; second grade; neither two nor one and a half.
When they say this about a person, it means an individual without a clearly expressed position, and at the same time incapable of active action. In fact, such a citizen is just an average peasant, a gray mouse. This means that from such a person, neither benefit nor harm, he does not try to climb the career ladder, and lives like everyone else, that is, he simply goes with the flow.
By the way, not many people know that this expression is an abbreviation for “neither fish nor fowl, nor caftan nor cassock.”
The origin of this catchphrase is not truly known, but it can be said that all Slavic peoples use it to one degree or another. Even in Italy you can find a similar ambiguous saying, it sounds like " ne carne ne pesce”.
Today, the generally accepted version of the origin of this expression, many researchers attribute it to the religious wars that took place in Europe. This is evidenced by the second part of the phraseological unit “neither caftan nor cassock.” It is from this that most eggheads draw their conclusions.
After the Protestant movement strengthened in Europe, a protracted confrontation between representatives of different faiths. There is a huge gap in worldview and perception of reality between Catholics and Protestants. Especially on religious taboos and dogmas. Respectable Catholics always observed fasting and other church holidays, while Protestants ridiculed such prejudices.
In principle, their view of religion was sound, since they believed that they did not need the intermediary of the church to communicate with God. As a result, Protestants formed their own rules and foundations that were alien to Catholic to the world. During Lent, Protestants ate meat, which caused mass protests among the Catholic community.
From that very day, products such as fish for Catholics and meat for Protestants found themselves on opposite sides of the barricades.
Ordinary people who did not “bother” with religious wars, and treated equally both one and other communities, began to ironically call them “ neither fish nor fowl", thereby showing that these problems do not bother them at all.
After reading this short historical excursion, you learned Neither fish nor fowl meaning phraseological unit, and now you can explain to those who wish the origin of this concept.
The meaning of the phraseological unit “neither fish nor fowl”
Let's consider a fairly common phraseological unit of the Russian language “ neither fish nor fowl" This is a truncated version. And full sounds like “neither fish nor fowl, neither caftan nor cassock" Analogues of this phrase - synonyms:, or “neither a peahen nor a crow”, they also say “neither in the city of Bogdan nor in the village of Selifan”, “the middle of the half is so-so”.
Everywhere meaning- the same.
So talk about a person, which is nothing special. Mediocrity, average. It does no harm, no good. Without the resources to achieve anything, he lives like everyone else, going with the flow.
This phraseological unit by origin refers to common Slavic. That is, its analogues exist in many Slavic languages. Even in Italian there is a similar saying that sounds like “né carne né pesce”.
All researchers accept one version emergence this phrase. Let us pay attention to the second, less common part of the phrase - “neither caftan nor cassock.” It just points to where this saying came from.
With the emergence of the Protestant movement (16th century) in Europe, religious confrontations began between representatives, and, accordingly, followers of both faiths. The views of supporters of different religious movements differed on literally everything. Especially on religious traditions and dogmas. Catholics strictly observed traditional rituals, among which fasting occupied one of the important places. Protestants, on the contrary, emphasized their disdain for established norms and dogmas. Developing the theory that in order to communicate with God, a person does not need intermediaries in the form of the church and monasticism, they pointedly ignored the previous ones and established their own rules for serving the Almighty. By eating meat during Catholic fasts, they protested against fans of Catholicism. And so food products - fish and meat
We found ourselves on opposite sides of the barricades of religious wars.
Those who were on the sidelines, not sharing any of the opposing religious points of view, began to be contemptuously called “ neither fish nor fowl”, thereby expressing a disrespectful, dismissive attitude towards apostates.
Seeing this question made me think. It turns out that in everyday life I use this expression very often, of course, if it is appropriate. I understand its meaning, but I never thought about its origin.
Since I am a historian by training, I remembered with pleasure what I was taught.
So, the saying “neither fish nor fowl” is not that ancient. It appeared in the vocabulary of people in the sixteenth century AD.
At this not-so-distant time, such a religious movement as Protestantism appeared. This is one of the branches of Catholicism. Their main difference is that Catholics read the Bible and prayers in Latin, Protestants translated them into the language of the flock. The confrontation between these two religions is described in the famous work of Alexandre Dumas “The Three Musketeers”.
Before this we talked about differences between these two religions. So, one of them is as follows. According to religious rules:
- Catholics were allowed to eat meat (with the exception of days on which fasting occurred).
- Protestants did not eat meat at all, even on ordinary days.
Therefore, people determined what religion a person belonged to by noticing his culinary preferences. But there were also those who could not decide which flock to join. They ran from one parish to another, or were afraid to openly express their choice. The fact is that Protestants were persecuted and not everyone had the courage to suffer for their faith. That's why they were called "neither fish nor fowl."
In our time, this expression applies to people who are insecure, do not have their own opinion, are passive, do not strive to improve their situation (material or social), and lack initiative.
Do you think that the meaning “neither fish nor meat” is some kind of name of a dish? No, absolutely not. Rather, this is a certain category of people who are not distinguished by initiative and personal brightness. Nothing concrete can be said about them. Let's look at the expression in more detail.
The full version of the saying and its history
Almost all phraseological units are extremely interesting, our time will give something great and powerful, otherwise it seems that we only consume, use and offer nothing in return. Well, okay, let's leave the old man's muttering and move on to the topic.
It turns out that the expression “neither fish nor fowl” appeared in the 16th century, when Europe was rocked by religious wars. The full form of the phraseological unit sounds like this: “neither fish nor meat, neither caftan nor cassock.” Martin Luther, leader of the Reformation, criticized the religious tenets of the Catholic Church and rejected its central role in mediating between God and man. Luther's main idea was that a person is saved “by faith alone”; he does not need any intermediaries in this. We can talk about the history and significance of the Reformation for a long time, but the most important thing is that it was she who gave humanity the wonderful phraseology “neither fish nor fowl”, the meaning of which we are considering.
Meaning
In addition to key positions, some habits that were previously considered inviolable have apparently also undergone changes. For example, Catholics did not allow themselves to eat meat during Lent, but Protestants did. Since then, people began to be divided into “meat” and “fish”, and those who did not want to take any position in this regard became subjects without clearly expressed preferences. Now we have safely forgotten the origin story, but we remember the meaning of “neither fish nor fowl”: going with the flow, not having any special beliefs, ambitions, or requests. Remember the film "Garage" by Eldar Ryazanov? In it, a cameo role was played by the character Karpukhin, who had a wonderful line: “I’m from the majority.” And so is our anonymous hero.
The harm and benefits of neutrality
Facelessness has its advantages in conditions when the world is split into two camps. For example, supporting Luther or the Catholic Church is not a fight in which one must necessarily choose a side. And when it comes to life in general, it is necessary to have a definite opinion; if you don’t have it, all people without a definite position can share the fate of losers or winners.
But this is if we talk about the crisis. In ordinary measured life, neutrality also has its pros and cons. If a person is not known and not touched, then he is unlikely to turn out to be extreme, because in any situation he is not a competitor to those who strongly desire something: to get married, to get promoted, to earn a million. The “neither fish nor fowl” man will interfere with all these people: his neighbors are simply not interested in the movements of his soul and body.
The negative side of this position is primarily associated with loneliness. Men and women love active, cheerful, positive people. And those who don't care are usually ignored. In justification, I would like to say that a person rarely chooses what to be. Usually the flow of life shapes it almost spontaneously.