It's both short and simple, isn't it? No. For both is the word I'm talking about, and though short, it isn't simple. Both is easy both to use correctly and to get wrong.
Here's a common error: his speech was heard both with cheers and jeers. You could say it met both with cheers and with jeers, or, alternatively, with both cheers and jeers. Both of those phrases are correct, so why not this halfway house? Answer: with this use of both, the two words or phrases that follow it must be parallel. If you say both with cheers, say and with jeers, not just and jeers. No huge error, but an error it is.
And what about my both of those phrases? Shouldn't that read both those phrases? No: both (of those) versions are correct. It is merely a trifle more formal to omit of those or of the. Indeed, if, say, you've just mentioned Nehru and Jinnah, it's natural to put despite their differences, both men were.... Or indeed to omit men as well and just say both, using that word as a pronoun.
That's a reminder that in origin both meant 'both of two', not more. As a pronoun it still does. But in the phrase both... and... you can put as many nouns, adjectives or suchlike as you fancy: he was both tall, dark and handsome - and a fool. The latest editor of Fowler's Modern English Usage calls this 'illogicality' rare among modern writers, and I bow to his expertise. But English is not ruled by logic, and this usage is not rare in speech, nor unacceptable in writing.
It's possible
Both... and... can also bring a slight risk of ambiguity. Usually, the placing of both avoids that. We both visited Delhi and Agra emphasizes that both of us did so; we visited both Delhi and Agra emphasizes the two places. But both normally precedes, not follows, auxiliary verbs such as be or have. So you can get a sentence such as Hitler and Stalin were both conceited and cruel. Beware. The facts are clear, but are you emphasizing both men, or both vices? Best avoid such a sentence (let alone one like Both Hitler... both cruel... unless you are keen to emphasize - usually by a spoken stress on the words - that both men had both ugly streaks).
As to word-order, there's no distinction of sense (or frequency of use) between both Jack and Jill went up the hill and Jack and Jill both went up... But when the two names or nouns or pronouns are the objects, not subjects, of some verb, both habitually comes before them, not after: Uncle Joe disliked both Jack and Jill. But that's no flat rule: Churchill detested Hitler and Stalin both is rare and not colloquial, but it's possible.
A must
In contrast, there's one flat impossibility. Or should-be-such - yet I recently met it in a book review: something like both (two real men) met in similar circumstances. Now both means 'the two', and can nearly always be used as such: both were tall or both were in uniform. But not if the phrase records some joint action, in words that make no sense unless both parties are involved. Then you must use the two.
Thus both fleets began firing, both had ships sunk: so far, okay. But not both admirals opened negotiations. Write the two admirals. Or both Jack and Jill went to the beach, fine. But not both talked together, nor both later married each other. It must be the two. No ifs, no buts, it must.
To write both in such cases is a barbarism. What the reviewer meant was that both men at issue had just lost a close relative. Sad, but no reason to butcher English grammar too.
