Re: Conjunctives, etc...

On Sun, 13 May 2007 08:40:37 -0400, John Vertical <johnvertical@...>
wrote:

>>Because in the former, the subject is singular (Johnson and Johnson is a
>>singular entity) while the latter, the subject is plural, Jack and Jill are
>>individually two cool people.
>
>>Chris Weimer
>
>...you just explained it yourself, didn't you?
>
>Anyway, as I see it, this is a part of a larger possible conjunction split.
>Basically, it's possible to contract "logical connectiv" and "set
>theoretical connectiv" usage. To have an example where these two would
>contrast, let's say, "red and blue hats". This can mean either
>1) red hats and blue hats; "red and blue" as an union of two adjectivs
>2) hats with both red and blue on them; "red and blue" as a conjunction of
>two adjectivs
Mark Rosenfelder's Kebreni has two "and"s differing in a very similar way.
<eh.c> is (1), forming a union, and <-ai> is (2), forming an intersection,
which is what you've done above if you assume that a hat which is at once
red and blue is piebald in red and blue.

It's interesting that "and" has two uses which are basically set-theoretic
duals of each other, depending (following your analysis below) on whether
the "and" conjoins the adjectives or the nouns.

>I suppose an alternate, syntax-based analysis of this disctinction would be
>to consider the 1st interpretation to be underlyingly the same as the
>out-spelled form, except with the first instance of "hats" omitted. Namely,
>((R)&(B hats)), while the 2nd would be ((R&B) hats).
>(Oh, and side question - is there a natlang precedent for a preferred
>structure of ((R hats)&(B)) for the 1st meaning?)
Alex