Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!newsreader.wustl.edu!news.starnet.net!wupost!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.unt.edu!hermes.oc.com!internet.spss.com!markrose
From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: What's innate? (Was Re: Artificial Neural Networks and Cognition
Message-ID: <D40p5v.6v3@spss.com>
Sender: news@spss.com
Organization: SPSS Inc
References: <3gtu3i$rf3@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3hgscc$su6@agate.berkeley.edu> <D3yqy8.L6G@spss.com> <3hr5ap$b6f@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 1995 01:22:40 GMT
Lines: 54

In article <3hr5ap$b6f@agate.berkeley.edu>,
 <jerrybro@uclink2.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>"I saw Mary.  I saw John."
>
>seems almost to "be of two minds" about the identity of the person
>"whom I saw".  This becomes especially apparent in certain contexts,
>such as,
>
>Q: "Who did you see?"
>A: "I saw Mary.  I saw John."
>
>which almost seems to provide two contradictory answers to the
>question.  The "and" in this case would seem to be a reassurance
>to the listener that both statements are meant "univocally", that
>no contradiction is intended.
>
>But notice that in "I saw John and I saw Mary" repeats the exact
>same words.  A way was apparently found to save some breath by
>shortening the final expression to either of:
>
>"I saw John and saw Mary."
>"I saw John and Mary."
>
>In other words, "and" doesn't merely join the two names, it joins
>two statements.  

Congratulations, you've reinvented transformational grammar.  :)

In the '60s, conjunction was widely taken to be pretty much as you've said;
"I saw John and Mary" was analyzed as having a deep structure rather like
that of "I saw John and I saw Mary".  

One complication, seemingly missed in the initial rush of enthusiasm,
is that the analysis doesn't work for some sentences; e.g. "John and Mary
got married" does not mean "John got married and Mary got married"
(or to be precise, it implies that, but it really describes an activity
which inherently has a plural subject).

>"You saw John and..."
>
>works by begging the other to supply the missing speech act (which
>could be "I saw Mary" or "I talked to John", or many other
>possibilities).
>
>"Who did you see John and..."
>
>doesn't work because it implies that
>
>"Who did you see John?"
>
>is a meaningful speech act.  

I don't think that follows, any more than "John annoyed and bored Mary"
implies that "John annoyed" is a meaningful speech act.  
