Re: Conjunctives, etc...

>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

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?)

Is this anything like what you were after? If yes, I can go on.
(I also suspect that I might be re-inventing Lojban here... am I? It
wouldn't be much of a leap to explicitely bring predicate logic into this.)

John Vertical

Reply