Geoff Pullum asks if “and/or” means “and AND or” or “and OR or”, and decides for the latter.
Well, duh. Clearly it means “and AND/OR or”.
(He does have a point though: if you think like a logician, it’s clearly an unnecessary connective. “And AND or” is logically equivalent to “and”, while “and OR or” is logically equivalent to “or”. You need to recognise that real people1 use “or” in its exclusive sense —rice or noodles with that curry?— as well as its inclusive sense —milk or sugar in your tea?— and “and/or” can be used to emphasise the inclusive reading.)
Notes:
- I’m allowed to make logician jokes, I’m a certified Master of Logic. No foolin’. [↪]
4 Comments
So you’re saying that “and/or” is “and and/or or” which is “and and and/or or or”…
Do you think it converges in some kind of higher order type theory?
Seems like it should, by some sort of fixpoint argument (you can collapse any finite number of nestings without changing the meaning). Paper? ^_~
How about: and/or means XOR or AND?
Seriously, the Language Log folks put this one through the wringer. I doubt there’s a sensible option they haven’t discussed, although as I recall my suggestion didn’t come up. (There’s an inference there for the taking.)