The answer is obvious

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’. [↪]

Comments

Apr 15, 2008 at 16:04 • bon

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?

Apr 16, 2008 at 18:04 • tikitu

Seems like it should, by some sort of fixpoint argument (you can collapse any finite number of nestings without changing the meaning). Paper? ^_~

May 22, 2008 at 14:05 • Tom

How about: and/or means XOR or AND?

May 22, 2008 at 16:05 • tikitu

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.)