The First Myth of ‘Or’

In Raymond Earl Jennings, The genealogy of disjunction. New York: Oxford University Press (1994)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This chapter talks about how philosophers define and use the word ‘or’ and how the word ‘or’ has undergone changes in modification. The notion of logical form does not apply straightforwardly to sentences of natural language. A sentence has no logical form independently of a specification of a formal language of representation. There is a sense in which the whole meaning of the inclusive “or” is only part of the meaning of the exclusive “or”. According to Boole's Rule, and-lists of general terms represent unions in the subject place; or-lists of general terms represent unions in the predicate place. A unified semantic account of or, and a uniform semantics of natural language connectives more generally must depend upon an abandonment of both assumptions.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

    This entry is not archived by us. If you are the author and have permission from the publisher, we recommend that you archive it. Many publishers automatically grant permission to authors to archive pre-prints. By uploading a copy of your work, you will enable us to better index it, making it easier to find.

    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 105,289

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-10-25

Downloads
11 (#1,503,314)

6 months
6 (#729,781)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references