h a l f b a k e r yContrary to popular belief
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
you can say
'neither one thing nor the other' , 'both this one and that one'
but have you ever wondered if there should be several
conjunctions like 'xeither one xor the other' ,nander etc
[link]
|
| |
I did this back in the '80s with a conlang I was designing at the time. I
used a truth table which assumed that P was set out as FFTT and Q
as FTFT, with a 4 phoneme word representing the truth table of the
operator assuming "P operator Q", arranged so that the word was a
pronounceable monosyllable, for instance "tosk". I can't remember
more than that except that "tosk" was one example of a valid
conjunction. One thing this doesn't do is introduce "colour", such as
the difference between "and" and "but", or "also' and "however", and it
also fails to account for multivalent truth values. There are natural
lannguages in which "and" and "but" are the same word, e.g. Arabic.
Anyway, [+]. |
|
| |
This exists to a certain extent in some inflected Asiatic languages. In
non-inflected Indo-European and Finno-Urgric ones, prefix,infix or
postfix operators would be possible; not sure about African ones. |
|
| |
//but have you ever wondered if there should be several conjunctions like 'xeither one xor the other' ,nander etc |
|
| |
Errr, no..but don't let that put you off. |
|
| |
I find I quite often use IFF (if and only if) in written
communications. |
|
| |
Rather confusingly, iff is expressed in some philosophy texts as "just
in case". |
|
| |
confusing - philosophy: tautology. |
|
| |