Different 'ands'?

[Travis B.]

The Eagle Land gas station franchise Kum 'n' Go

Oh dear god what were they thinking when they named it that. And I'm not going to explain what I'm thinking if you're not already thinking it too.

[zompist]

Gas 'n' Go
The Eagle Land gas station franchise Kum 'n' Go
Pizza 'n' Wings
TnL (computing, "texture and lighting")
TnA (please don't ask me to explain this one)
Scratch 'n' Match
Eat'n'Park (restaurant franchise in Eagle Land)
Shop'n'Stop (now-defunct convenience store franchise in Ohio)
Stop'n'Swop (defunct Nintendo video game operation)
pork'n'beans
bed'n'breakfast

I'd just note that most of these, apart from brand names, appear often or mostly with &. E.g. "bed & breakfast" returns 20.5 million hits on Bing, "bed and breakfast" 12.5 million, and "bed n breakfast" 1 million. Similarly "B&B" has 274 million results, "BnB" less than a million.

On cans, Campbell, Hunt's, Kroger, and various house brands have "Pork & Beans", Van Camp's has "Pork and Beans". A few minor brands do have "Pork n Beans".

I'm kind of surprised at "Stop 'n shop" as "Stop & Shop" is a national brand and presumably trademarked.

[Man in Space]

I'm kind of surprised at "Stop 'n shop" as "Stop & Shop" is a national brand and presumably trademarked.

It is entirely possible that this is me misremembering that. I haven't seen one around here in over 20 – 25 years, though.

[Travis B.]

Not a native English speaker, but I was wondering if this difference is reflected in the way you pronounce "and" in English, that is /ænd/ vs the reduced form /ən/.

This is definitely true of the English here ─ there commonly is a meaning difference between /æn(d)/ and /(ə)n/ of the sort discussed here.

(Clarification ─ these words are probably best analyzed as having final /d/ even when they have no stop because the /n/ is never flapped or elided, hence and a does not merge with in a, where elision commonly occurs.)

[linguistcat]

Japanese uses と <to> between items of a complete list, and や <ya> between a list of examples. So:

"Niku to yasai to gohan o tabemashita." = "I ate meat, vegetables, and rice (only)."
"Niku ya yasai ya gohan o tabemashita." = "I ate (things like) meat, vegetables, and rice."

とか <to ka> can also be used for partial lists. I'm trying to remember if there are any other "and"s.

Does そして count?

I hadn't even thought about it when I posted, but I'd say absolutely. I got so focused on just ways to say "and" between lists of nouns, I completely forgot lists of verbs, lists of adjectives, introducing related sentences, etc. All of which have different but sometimes overlapping forms of "and" that get used.

[Qwynegold]

In my mind I keep using terms like 'inclusive and' and 'exclusive and', but they're probably not very good descriptors. Sometimes and can combine two (or more) things but they remain one 'unit' and other times be used to link two 'units'; in writing we could use the word 'and' for the latter and ampersand for the former: "I'm seeing Mike and John & Sarah later" - where John & Sarah are a couple (i.e. one 'unit') and Mike is unconnected to them and so another 'unit', so you are saying you are seeing two entities, not three. Another is phrases like black & white: "I saw blue and black & white ones" i.e. blue ones and black-and-white ones. To me using two different words here doesn't seem that far fetched, but I've also never heard of it occurring.

I'm doing this exact same thing in a conlang! Using even the same terms: inclusive and exclusive and.

[Qwynegold]

Swedish has something like this, at least in the formal written language. The normal word for and is och, but the word samt is also available as a sort of ”higher level” conjunction. It’s not really that och is only used for ”units” (or natural as opposed to accidental combinations) though—it has more or less the same wide range of uses as English ”and”. However, ”samt” can be used to disambiguate complex/nested coordinations. In that case, ”och” would normally be used for the lower level coordination(s) and samt for the highest level.

Finnish does the same thing. The normal and is ja, while the equivalent of samt is sekä. Or at least I use the two words in a similar way as you described.

[Nortaneous]

I'm kind of surprised at "Stop 'n shop" as "Stop & Shop" is a national brand and presumably trademarked.

National? Isn't that (approximately) Ahold Delhaize's New England / upstate NY subsidiary? Naming rights to regional chains are complicated - see the famous Burger King case or Giant-Landover vs. Giant-Carlisle (two ~identically-named regional grocery chains with territories bordering each other, with Giant-Landover operating as "Super G" inside Giant-Carlisle's territory, but not anymore because both companies were also bought by Ahold Delhaize - which preserves the existence of both Giants to the present day)

[zompist]

I'm kind of surprised at "Stop 'n shop" as "Stop & Shop" is a national brand and presumably trademarked.

National? Isn't that (approximately) Ahold Delhaize's New England / upstate NY subsidiary? Naming rights to regional chains are complicated - see the famous Burger King case or Giant-Landover vs. Giant-Carlisle (two ~identically-named regional grocery chains with territories bordering each other, with Giant-Landover operating as "Super G" inside Giant-Carlisle's territory, but not anymore because both companies were also bought by Ahold Delhaize - which preserves the existence of both Giants to the present day)

I think you're right... the thing is, we have Stop & Shops here in Chicago. There was a big one downtown when I was growing up, and there are still several locations today. So when we moved to Massachusetts I figured it was the same chain. But apparently there never was a connection.

[bradrn]

I just happened to run across a neat example from Mangap Mbula (Austronesian):

to-na

then-TOP

i-ko

3s-flee

mi

and

i-miili

3s-return

ma

and

i-mar

3s-come

kar

village

After that, he fled back to the village.

(This is from Foley’s chapter in Complex Predicates 2010, ed. Amberber, Baker & Harvey.)

The first ‘and’ mi is looser, the second one ma is tighter. Furthermore:

The conjunction ma has a strong implicative force as opposed to mi; one can flee some place without having to return somewhere, but returning to a place generally entails coming to it. […] But not all uses of ma are implicative in this way

He also mentions a third conjunction to ‘and then’.

[sasasha]

Not a native English speaker, but I was wondering if this difference is reflected in the way you pronounce "and" in English, that is /ænd/ vs the reduced form /ən/.

This is definitely true of the English here ─ there commonly is a meaning difference between /æn(d)/ and /(ə)n/ of the sort discussed here.

(Clarification ─ these words are probably best analyzed as having final /d/ even when they have no stop because the /n/ is never flapped or elided, hence and a does not merge with in a, where elision commonly occurs.)

Sorry for the necropost, but I just came upon this beautiful clip from Dinner Ladies and couldn’t resist posting it as a demonstration of the ’n’ phenomenon.

[Emily]

Not a native English speaker, but I was wondering if this difference is reflected in the way you pronounce "and" in English, that is /ænd/ vs the reduced form /ən/.

This is definitely true of the English here ─ there commonly is a meaning difference between /æn(d)/ and /(ə)n/ of the sort discussed here.

(Clarification ─ these words are probably best analyzed as having final /d/ even when they have no stop because the /n/ is never flapped or elided, hence and a does not merge with in a, where elision commonly occurs.)

i think occam's razor would require calling this one word with greater or lesser reduction depending on the stress pattern of the sentence, rather than two different words