Zompist Bboard Again

This seems like something that is bound to have been discussed at some point, but basically: is there a language out there where there are different types of 'and'?

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 once read a paper claiming that Mandarin Chinese Tone Sandhi allows speakers to differentiate between the two structures, IIRC. I can't recall title or author though. I think the gist was that [X & Y & Z] is one domain for Tone Sandhi and [X & [Y & Z]] has two domains.

Jonlang wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 12:27 pm This seems like something that is bound to have been discussed at some point, but basically: is there a language out there where there are different types of 'and'?

Yes, there are languages that use different conjunctions for nouns, verbs, and/or predicates. I can’t think of the names offhand but CT does this and I specifically recall it being an ANADEW thing…maybe Conlangery did an episode on it?

Yes, Latin. -que connects things more closely. One page gives this example:

ferrō īgnīque
with fire and sword

aquā et īgnī interdictus
forbidden the use of water and fire

The first implies that something was devastated with both fire and sword; the second that water is forbidden and fire is forbidden, not that only the combination water-and-fire is forbidden.

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.

The example with Mike and John & Sarah could be translated into Swedish as:
”Jag ska träffa Micke samt Johan och Sara senare.”
(This particular example is perfectly grammatical for me with the intended meaning, but it does sound a bit odd, I think mainly for stylistic reasons).

Here's another example:
"Jag ska köpa mjölk, ost och bröd samt ett par strumpor."
(I'm going to buy milk, cheese and bread, and a pair of socks.)

In this case, milk, cheese and bread don't really form a "unit" or "natural combination", but they are more similar to each other than they are to the socks.

Using samt is not obligatory, and it's rare in the spoken language. I also think there's a preference (but not a requirement) for samt to be the last conjunction, and I think you could find examples where this preference has overridden the logical/semantic grouping.

It is also possible to use samt for disambiguation in examples like "Jag vill besöka södra Norge samt Finland" (I want to visit southern Norway and Finland). Samt seems to not allow ellipsis of a shared element, so in that case it is clear that the qualification "södra" (southern) applies only to "Norge" (Norway).

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.

In these examples, I use two different levels of coordination :

• I see mike and will see john and sarah

• I've seen blue things and black and white things

Ephraim wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 4:53 pm Here's another example:
"Jag ska köpa mjölk, ost och bröd samt ett par strumpor."
(I'm going to buy milk, cheese and bread, and a pair of socks.)

The English part there is as if (or to me reads as if) the milk, bread, and cheese were either expected to be bought or at least there be no surprise at their being bought, but the socks were maybe an unexpected addition. If a question mark were added: and a pair of socks? this, to me, would be the result of someone adding socks last-minute and someone is repeating it for clarification. Both of those scenarios seem to me to be perfectly reasonable uses of a different 'and' to the former simple list: milk, cheese and bread.

It looks different perhaps because
the purchase will not take place in the same store...

they're zeugma,
each time there's an ellipsis of something
that allows an inappropriate coordination
that sounds strange...

reintroducing the missing part allows you
to differentiate them with several levels of coordination...

I'm going to buy
at the grocery store: milk, cheese and bread ,
and at the clothing store: a pair of socks

Jonlang wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 3:40 am

Ephraim wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 4:53 pm Here's another example:
"Jag ska köpa mjölk, ost och bröd samt ett par strumpor."
(I'm going to buy milk, cheese and bread, and a pair of socks.)

The English part there is as if (or to me reads as if) the milk, bread, and cheese were either expected to be bought or at least there be no surprise at their being bought, but the socks were maybe an unexpected addition. If a question mark were added: and a pair of socks? this, to me, would be the result of someone adding socks last-minute and someone is repeating it for clarification. Both of those scenarios seem to me to be perfectly reasonable uses of a different 'and' to the former simple list: milk, cheese and bread.

The sense I get is that the cheese and bread were a thing by themselves (“I’m going to buy milk, both cheese and bread, and a pair of socks”).

we can also differentiate between and and then...
I’m going to buy milk then cheese and bread, then a pair of socks
or any other combination...

Jonlang wrote: ↑Sun Aug 25, 2024 3:40 am

Ephraim wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 4:53 pm Here's another example:
"Jag ska köpa mjölk, ost och bröd samt ett par strumpor."
(I'm going to buy milk, cheese and bread, and a pair of socks.)

The English part there is as if (or to me reads as if) the milk, bread, and cheese were either expected to be bought or at least there be no surprise at their being bought, but the socks were maybe an unexpected addition.

There are many reasons for splitting the list. It would also make sense for shopping at a supermarket that has a clothing section. Where there are multiple sections to a limit, I often delimit the portion by semicolons, often with an 'Oxford semicolon'. I justify mentioning writing by approaching the limit of oral competence.

Subject: Different 'ands'?

Jonlang wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 12:27 pm This seems like something that is bound to have been discussed at some point, but basically: is there a language out there where there are different types of 'and'?

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.

Certainly, different languages have different types of and.
And there are natural languages in which the conjugands must be the same part of speech, and the cojunction varies depending on which part-of-speech the conjoined terms are.
For instance, maybe nouns and pronouns are conjoined differently from verbs, which are conjoined differently from adjectives, which are conjoined differently from adverbs, which are conjoined differently from adpositions. How to conjoin clauses, might not be a straightforward matter.

Jonlang wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 12:27 pm This seems like something that is bound to have been discussed at some point, but basically: is there a language out there where there are different types of 'and'?

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.

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/.

vorog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 5:02 am

Jonlang wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 12:27 pm This seems like something that is bound to have been discussed at some point, but basically: is there a language out there where there are different types of 'and'?

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.

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/.

I think it's a case of stress or intonation; but I haven't really thought much about it.

linguistcat wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 11:23 pm 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?

Jonlang wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:11 am

vorog wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 5:02 am

Jonlang wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2024 12:27 pm This seems like something that is bound to have been discussed at some point, but basically: is there a language out there where there are different types of 'and'?

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.

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/.

I think it's a case of stress or intonation; but I haven't really thought much about it.

Reminds me of the way that deeply collocated things get put either side of <'n'> on signage, like "fish'n'chips"... actually, is there anything else this commonly happens with? And does that happen everywhere?

sasasha wrote: ↑Mon Sep 30, 2024 4:16 pm Reminds me of the way that deeply collocated things get put either side of <'n'> on signage, like "fish'n'chips"... actually, is there anything else this commonly happens with? And does that happen everywhere?

Do you mean 'n itself? I feel like folksly misspellings are out of vogue... I mean, most of the time the present participle ends in [n̩] but why bother writing readin' 'n writin' when just about everybody says that?

You still see it in rock 'n roll, to say nothing of Guns 'n Roses, which is their official spelling.

Another reason it's less often used is how easy it is to use & instead. FWIW there's a box of "Mac & Cheese" in the fridge, and that seems to be usual on packages... except for "Cheetos Mac 'n Cheese", which has the tagline "Bold & Cheesy", so they're having it both ways.

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


Notably, not ^XNetflix'n'chill. That would look odd to me…is it that "'n'" is primarily used with nouns only (or mostly)?

There is a grocery store chain here in Wisconsin named Pick 'n Save, even though most of the stores have been rebranded since Kroger bought Roundy's.