Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2023 September 6

= September 6 =

Popular languages in India
Among Indians whose native language is neither English nor Hindi, which one of these langauges is more common/popular as a first foreign language?

I'm not asking about Indians whose native language is one of these languages, because I already guess English will win as a first foreign language among those Indians, just because Hindi is much more common as a native language among Indians, so that's why I'm only asking about the other Indians.

Additionally, I'm not asking about the general status of these languages as a foreign language generally - whether as a first foreign language or not, because I guess both languages have a similar status as a foreign language in terms of populatity among Indians whose native language is neither of these languages. That's why I'm only asking about their popularity as a first foreign language.

2A06:C701:7467:600:38D1:3B91:F293:E093 (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Popularity" seems to be an improper choice of word, here, but a 2011 census giving the prevalence of native languages is listed at Languages of India. (Apparently, English is very lowly ranked as a first language, but common as a lingua franca as a second or third language.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out, I'm only asking about the status of a given language as a first foreign language (among Indians whose native language is neither English nor Hindi), so the required column on the table given in your link is the one under the category "second language" (i.e. first foreign language), while - even in this category - Hindi turns out to defeat every other language, followed by English, even among all Indians, i.e. including those whose native language is Hindi and who consequently can't have it as a first foreign language, so Hindi must defeat English as a first foreign language (i.e. as a second language) even among Indians whose native language is neither English nor Hindi, and this is a surprise to me. However, English is still ranked second (following Hindi), as a first foreign language. 2A06:C701:7467:600:38D1:3B91:F293:E093 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

While I am not Indian, I am startled at the use of the term "foreign language" for a language like Kannada or Telugu, when it is a native language of India. These languages are national languages as much as Hindi. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:WHAAOE. Foreign language. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I really meant "is a second language", but I didn't want to be interpreted "is ranked second among the common languages", so I had to sum up (in my recent response to another editor) that "English is still ranked second (following Hindi) as a first foreign language". Anyway, I accept the need to be more exact in other contexts. 2A06:C701:7467:600:38D1:3B91:F293:E093 (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OP, I appreciate that English may not be your first language, so can I respectfully advise you that your use above of terms like "win", "lowly" and "defeat" have somewhat combative undertones? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The term "lowly" was not the OP's. Moreover, as used it did not refer to status but to statistical ranking. --Lambiam 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Mea culpa. But "very lowly ranked" is also unnatural; "very low ranked" or "ranked very low" would be more usual – perhaps the respondent was subconsciously adopting the inadvertently belittling tone set by the OP, which was to the point of my concern. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "inadvertently belittling tone set by" me? What do you mean? As Lambiam has pointed out, the words "win" and "defeat" (being the only ones I used), did not refer to status but rather to statistical ranking, so I can't see any belittling tone here, even not inadvertently. 2A06:C701:7441:1C00:9CDB:3E8A:6028:B04F (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let E, H and X stand for English, Hindi and any other language of India besides E and H. Let a two-letter combination stand for the number of speakers having tne first letter as their first language and the second letter as their second languages, measured in millions of speakers. I assume that EX is so small as to be negligible. From the table at we find:
 * EH         =     0.26
 * HE + HX = 528.35
 * XE + XH = 616.56 – XX
 * EH + XH = 139
 * HE + XE =  83
 * If we treat this as a system of five equations with five unknowns, the variables occurring in the left-hand sides, we can solve it exactly, resulting in:
 * EH = 0.26, HE = XX – 394.82, HX = 923.17 – XX, XE = 477.82 – XX, XH = 138.74.
 * Since HE ≥ 0, we deduce that XX ≥ 394.82, and hence XE ≤ 477.82 – 394.82 = 83.00. In conclusion: XH > XE by a factor of at least 138.74 / 83.00 = 1.67. --Lambiam 12:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to go back home
I know that "suggest to" is not considered to be a standard proper English. However, is it also considered to be a non-native speech? How much is it common, if at all, among native English speaking adults? 2A06:C701:7467:600:38D1:3B91:F293:E093 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * As an elderly native English speaker, I have never heard any other nEs speaker use this construction, and would not expect one to, except in contrived situations: for example, A asks "Should I write 'to go back home' or 'to return home'?" and B replies "I suggest 'to go back home'."
 * Another grammatically correct construction would be A: "Which is best, to go back home or to carry on with our journey?" B: I suggest, to go back home", but normally B would say "I suggest going back home" or "I suggest we go back home" (etc. depending on the situation). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.81.165 (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Same here; and I'm reasonably familiar with both British English and American, both written and spoken. I may have heard that construction somewhere, but "you" in this phrase is just as easy to say (and less abstract or general) as "to". Or else "suggest that" [something proposed]. For example, "'How old is London?' 'I suggest you look it up in Wikipedia.' 'I suggest, sir, that you are a fool!' 'And I suggest in turn, sir, that you go jump in the lake.'" —— Shakescene (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it's not that unusual to see or hear "to" after the noun form "suggestion", as in:
 * "'In place of your suggestion to see Barbie, I suggest that we watch Oppenheimer, instead.'"
 * Since English-speaking countries have been settled in turn by immigrants from so many different countries, and since the current local colloquial dialect of English can also vary greatly over time and distance, it wouldn't surprise me if "suggest to" is a direct but literal translation into English from some immigrants' language. —— Shakescene (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * English has different uses of the word "to", which can cause confusion. There's "to" as a preposition (I'm going to the movies) and there's "to" as a marker of the infinitive form of the verb (I'm going to see the movie).  Despite the similar construction, those are really different words, they should be thought of as more homophonous than similar in meaning.  Many dialects will actually pronounce them differently, with /tu/ for the preposition and /tǝ/ for the infinitive marker.  The difference in pronunciation (full vowel for the preposition, and reduced vowel for the infinitive form) is why the latter can be reduced further to "I'm gonna see the movie" where as "I'm gonna the movies" sounds VERY wrong.  I believe Geoff Lindsey actually covered this topic in a fairly recent YouTube video, but I'm not in a place where I can check right now; but if you search through his recent videos, you might find it (and I might as well later).  -- Jayron 32 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe it was his video on weak forms, for the record. Still can't check YouTube.  I'll see if I remember to do so later.  -- Jayron 32 16:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As a non-native speaker who has reached a high fluency in English, I think the construction feels strained, albeit not formmally incorrect, as well as being somewhat unclear on who would be the addressed part in this conversation, i.e. should it be interpreted as "I suggest for you to go back home." or "I suggest we go back home." Then, there are hundreds of millions of native speakers of English around the world, so it's hard to say that the construction never has been or would be used by native speakers. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "I suggest for you to ..." sounds very strange to me, and a clear indicator that the speaker or writer did not grow up speaking English. On the other hand (and this struck me over lunch), "to" as a simple preposition (rather than the beginning of what in other languages is the infinitive form of a verb) is quite possible as in "I suggest to you that we go see Wikipedia:The Movie". And as for "gonna", "We're gonna see the movies" or "we're gonna the movies" seems quite normal to me. —— Shakescene (talk) —— Shakescene (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, then... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing "I suggest..." as "My suggestion is..." then "My suggestion is to go back home" would be fine. 136.54.106.120 (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A native speaker can say, "I should like to suggest trying another alternative". While I suggest to ... is grammatically problematic, this offers an easy semantic way to soften the grammatically unproblematic but possibly too coercive I propose to ....  --Lambiam 22:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Jayron here.  While I'm familiar with "We're gonna" as shorthand for "We're going to" + infinitive, I've never encountered it as shorthand for "We're going" + "to" used as a preposition. 2A00:23D0:C32:2601:998F:A7BF:6379:214 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems that you wanted to respond to User:Shakescene rather than to User:Lambiam. 2A06:C701:7467:600:38D1:3B91:F293:E093 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What natural language(s) have grammar word(s) for the largest number of truth table things?
For instance English doesn't seem to have word(s) that mean and/or. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure it does. In English, "or" means either or both. What we don't have is a word for xor. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 21:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A better language would have different words for the or in "prime numbers can be odd or even" and "it's probably English or British". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wo do have a word for xor: unless. 2A06:C701:7467:600:38D1:3B91:F293:E093 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it. Suppose your doctor says "unless you take this medicine, you'll die".  You take the medicine, step out of your house, and get flattened by a bus.  You took the medicine and you also died, but that doesn't mean your doctor was wrong.
 * I think "unless" means something like "if not", but here "if" does not denote material implication, but more something like relevant implication. Actually I think this is a lot of the confusion about "or" as well -- "or" does not (except in special contexts like the statement of mathematical theorems) mean truth-table disjunction, but some sort of "relevant disjunction", where the disjuncts are related in some causal way.
 * I'm actually not sure English has any pure "truth-table words" at all. --Trovatore (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Always, never, neither, not, false, isn't, yes, true, and, or, both, either? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "Always" and "never" are quantifiers or modal operators; can't be captured by truth tables. The unary and 0-ary ones (not, false, yes, true) I suppose you can argue are part of propositional logic.  English "or" is not capturable by truth tables (except in special contexts), as I explained above in my remarks about "relevant disjunction".  English "and" is also complicated ("John and Mary went to the movies" -- if they both went, but separately, is this statement true or false?).  "Both", "either", and "neither" have some sort of distinct linguistic status; I don't think you can consider them truth functions in any case. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Always is like a logic gate or circuit element that outputs 1 no matter what goes in (0 or 1), never is like a logic gate that never gives a 1, true is like a gate that checks if input is true (1), false is like a gate that says 1/yes it's false when input is 0 (false), and is like a gate that says 1 when both inputs are true and no other times, reality and language isn't always perfect Boolean algebra that can't be ambiguous (this is white, true or false? In math alienese it's always going to be one or the other, in real life it can be subjective (is this white or light gray? does a Caucasian painted blue count? does aluminum foil count? does the ink spot count?)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, that sort of "always" -- you mean the unary function with the constant value of true. That wasn't clear.  The first thing I think of for "always" is a temporal interpretation -- "always P" means "at every time t, P is true at time t". This can't be captured by truth tables, because it has a universal quantifier that ranges over all times.
 * So I mean, sure, you can use the word "always" to capture the truth function that you have in mind, just as you can use "if" to capture material implication, and you aren't wrong. But it's a stretch to call them the natural-language meanings.  They're not even common natural-language meanings, except in special contexts.  Similar remarks apply for "or", which I think is why people get into these arguments about whether the English "or" is inclusive or exclusive.  It's not actually either one; it's not truth-functional at all, but something more complicated. -Trovatore (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * More like "how many of these logic things can be named with single words that existed before people tried to name the things" (i.e. not NAND) than "how many of these logic things can be named with pre-existing words who's most common meanings are exactly like logic gates" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * . Ciao dal restrahnt (several years ago, remember?). I'm the person you've just responded to, regarding xor/unless.
 * Please notice, that just as "xor" can't appear in the beginning of a proposition, but rather between its two parts, so "unless" replacing xor should be used the same way (for replacing xor). So, it's not "unless you take this medicine, you'll die", but rather "you'll die, unless you take this medicine". Meaning: If you don't take it you'll die, but if you do take it you won't die.
 * Additionally, the doctor's promise is not a prophecy, but rather expresses their belief only. They really believe their promise will come true, i.e. they really believe I won't die if I take the medicine, because they don't think about my age nor about the possibility of me getting flattened by a bus. Had they taken this possibility into account, they wouldn't have promised "you'll die unless you take this medicine", but rather would have used more careful words. However, once they choose to state: "you'll die, unless you take this medicine", they really mean "If you don't take the medicine you'll die, but if you do take the medicine you won't die". Whether their belief will come true, is another issue, but this is their belief, expressed by an "unless"-sentence meaning "xor".
 * Additionally, when a careful doctor, or a prophet, states (regarding my current illness): "you will die", they use it as an abbreviation of: "you will die because of your current illness". So what they really mean by their "unless"-sentence is: "If you don't take the medicine you'll die because of your current illness, but if you do take the medicine you won't die because of your current illness", without taking into account other factors that may cause my death, e.g my current age, or the bus that is going to flatten me within a few minutes. 2A06:C701:7467:600:38D1:3B91:F293:E093 (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no, still don't agree. Even if you take the medicine and die of the illness, it still doesn't mean that the doctor was wrong that you would die of the illness unless you took the medicine.  --Trovatore (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * . Ciao dal restrahnt. What did the doctor exactly say? "Unless you take the medicine you will die"? or "You'll die unless you take the medicine"? 2A06:C701:7467:600:38D1:3B91:F293:E093 (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't find any difference in meaning in those two. Neither one means exclusive-or. --Trovatore (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You keep surprising me. Don't you agree, that when a parent says to their kid "You will be punished unless you behave well", they actually mean their kid won't be punished if and only if the kid behaves well? If this is not what they mean, so how do they think their kid will be motivated to behave well? 2A06:C701:7467:600:38D1:3B91:F293:E093 (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there's what the parent means, and there's what the actual sentence means, and you're mixing in a bunch of things that are not strictly part of the interpretation of "unless".
 * Let's fix the sexes to make it easier to dereference pronouns, and say a father tells his daughter she will be punished unless she behaves well. We hope he will not punish her if she does behave well, because that's not a fatherly thing to do, because of Gricean relevance, because of exceptio probat regulam &mdash; in short, because of pragmatics.
 * But none of this is encoded in "unless". The only thing he has promised is that she will be punished if she does not behave well.  He has not said what will happen if she does behave well. --Trovatore (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Fortunately, a regular native speaker using the word if, means exactly what it means in logic, and that's why we agree about the meaning of if. However, the word unless is not included in the list of the saved words of logic, so I can't see how you can establish the distinction you've made between what unless actually means and what native speakers using it mean.
 * 2. As opposed to saved words in logic - like if and xor, what words in a given human language actually mean - is simply what a regular native speaker using them means. This is how we define semantics of human languages.
 * 3. The example, of the parent and their kid - or of the father and his daughter, was given to establish my claim about what a regular native speaker means by unless, and I can't see how we can define what words in a given human language actually mean, without relying on what a regular native speaker using them means. 2A06:C701:7441:1C00:9CDB:3E8A:6028:B04F (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On point 1, actually, I disagree. "If" in natural language (any natural language, I think, not just English) is not really captured by material implication.  It's usually some sort of relevant implication, at least if (as in your point 3) you want to mix semantics and pragmatics.
 * On point 3, I'm afraid you're just wrong about what a regular native speaker means by "unless". The speaker does mean to establish some sort of nexus between the behavior and the punishment, but it is just simply not an "if and only if". --Trovatore (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * 3. The example, of the parent and their kid - or of the father and his daughter, was given to establish my claim about what a regular native speaker means by unless, and I can't see how we can define what words in a given human language actually mean, without relying on what a regular native speaker using them means. 2A06:C701:7441:1C00:9CDB:3E8A:6028:B04F (talk) 17:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On point 1, actually, I disagree. "If" in natural language (any natural language, I think, not just English) is not really captured by material implication.  It's usually some sort of relevant implication, at least if (as in your point 3) you want to mix semantics and pragmatics.
 * On point 3, I'm afraid you're just wrong about what a regular native speaker means by "unless". The speaker does mean to establish some sort of nexus between the behavior and the punishment, but it is just simply not an "if and only if". --Trovatore (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

(A). As for 1: Fortunately, our dispute is not about the meaning of if. (B). Do you agree to my previous point 2 ? (C). If you do, then do you agree to the following: When a regular native English speaking father says to his daughter: "You will be punished unless you behave well", he actually means his daughter won't be punished if and only if she behaves well. 2A06:C701:7441:1C00:9CDB:3E8A:6028:B04F (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * On (A): Since "unless" means nearly exactly the same as "if not", the meaning of "if" does in fact come into play.  It's possible you think "unless" does not mean nearly exactly the same as "if not".  In that case you are incorrect.
 * On (B) and (C), kind of mixed together: Well, there are various levels of things that might be called "meaning" going on here.  Are you taking the position that what the father "means" is necessarily the same as what he intends to do?  I agree that what the father intends to do most likely does not include punishing the daughter if she behaves well.
 * However that is not necessarily the same as what the father's sentence means. If it were, then sentences would have meanings only if you can read minds.  The semantics of the sentence can be analyzed without being privy to the father's private intent.
 * The father's sentence means exactly the same as "if you do not behave well you will be punished". Note that none of the "relevance" points are any different for this version.  It is still true that he probably does not intend to punish her if she does behave well, for all the reasons mentioned.  However, he has not promised, in this sentence by itself, that he will not, and neither has he done so with the sentence using "unless". --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (I) Our dispute is not about the logical meaning of the saved word if (in logic), just because both of us agree that its meaning is fixed by the truth table of if. The only dispute is about the meaning of unless, since it's not a saved word in logic: Does unless mean what "if not" means in logic, or it means what "xor" means in logic? This is what we disagree about.
 * (II) I didn't speak about what he intends to do, but rather about what he means.
 * (III) Please answer each one of my following two questions, separately: First question: Do you agree that the way we define semantics in human languages, is simply by asking regular native speakers what they mean by a given sentence they use? Second question: Do you agree that if we ask "what do you mean", then almost all native English speakers will answer, that by "You'll be punished unless you behave well", they mean "You'll be punished if and only if you won't behave well"?
 * (IV) Memorandum: Please answer, each one of my two questions, separately. 2A06:C701:7441:1C00:9CDB:3E8A:6028:B04F (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've answered everything and I'm tired of playing this game with you. You're just simply wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I respect your full right to avoid complying with my request to answer my two questions separately. I respect your tiredness as well. However, my questions can't be "wrong". Only indicative sentences (like the current one) can. If your current claim is going to be that my indicative sentences are wrong, then we will remain in dispute about whether they are true or wrong. But we will never be in dispute about whether my questions can be wrong, because they can't be, even in your opinion, and you know that. The same goes for the meaning of if: Both of us agree that its meaning is fixed by its well known truth table, so our main dispute - if it still exists - is only about the meaning of unless. You have claimed it means "if not", and I respect this opininon (regardless of whether I also accept it). My two questions should be respected as well, separately, and you know that. So our main dispute is quite limited, if it still exists at all. 2A06:C701:7441:1C00:9CDB:3E8A:6028:B04F (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not universally usable. Prime numbers can be odd unless even sounds weird. Prime numbers can be odd unless they're even doesn't sound weird but is an extra word. Do you want to take the bus unless train is ungrammatical. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You need to file a complaint with the inventors of English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal. Just wondering if some language could mention logic gates and stuff with fewer word alloys (i.e. NAND=not or and (neither or both but not one)), XOR (eXclusive or)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Natural language was invented before humans became aware of propositional logic, so it's not surprising that natural language is not optimized for propositional logic. As I mentioned, I don't think English (or really natural language in general; I'd be surprised if English were unusual in this regard) has "logic gates" at all.  You might look into something like Loglan or Lojban and see what they have. --Trovatore (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I see and/or in text a lot. Even just adding that would still be more coverage than English. And some of the thousands of languages are specific as fuck, can't even use a pronoun without specifying animicity and social status with five pronouns just for different tenses of trees or something like that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wait actually NAND is not and (true if not both), true if neither or both is something else. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think "and/or" is there primarily to capture truth-table inclusive-or (just plain "or" works for that; it doesn't exactly mean inclusive-or but it's closer to it than it is to exclusive-or). Like the others, it's more complicated and can't really be represented by a truth table.  --Trovatore (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would lawyers and others use and/or if not to stamp all possible wonderings of exclusive-or or inclusive out of readers' heads? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Because they're lawyers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems like the original question has been lost in the weeds, but I'd suggest looking at languages with a grammatical dual if you're seeking boolean operators in natural languages. Seems their likeliest nesting ground. Folly Mox (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Latin has a contrast between the word "vel", usually representing an inclusive or, and the word "aut", which is used to present exclusive alternatives. There's a lot of logic behind human languages, as you'll quickly discover if you study Montague grammar, Donkey sentences etc, but it's not dominated by first order Boolean logic (such as found in logic gates etc), many of whose details do not come very naturally to most people... AnonMoos (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Polish has two conjunctions translated into English as "or": lub and albo. When discussing Boolean logic, lub is used for inclusive disjunction (OR) and albo for exclusive disjunction (XOR). In everyday language they are used rather interchangeably, though. When exclusive disjunction needs to be stressed, Polish uses the duplication: albo X, albo Y, which is equivalent to the English "either X or Y" (you can't say lub X, lub Y). — Kpalion(talk) 11:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And/or links to articles in eight other languages; of the ones in the Latin alphabet, Esperanto has a single word for the concept.70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * eo:kaŭ is not an official or common word. The question was about natural languages. --Error (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * oops, had forgotten Esperanto is a constructed language. Thanks for the correction.70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I read somewhere that English or is more exclusive than Spanish o. Hence, Spanish y/o is discouraged unless "in very technical contexts". --Error (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * To say that in English "or" means either or both seems dangerous to me.  Imagine the doctor is treating a patient and says "These remedies are highly potent.   You may take one or the other."   The patient takes both and dies.   I'm not aware that the Latin vel has the meaning "as well as."   The forward slash (without the qualifier "and" in front means exactly the same as the word "or."   Thus in the phrase used by Prince Harry's spokesperson (who wanted to shut up his detractors without getting drawn into a nasty legal discussion which was of no interest to him whatsoever) the words "official/legal wedding on May 19" were deployed. 2A00:23D0:C32:2601:998F:A7BF:6379:214 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is dangerous, but that's the way the language works. Some usages are both completely correct and also troublesome. See, for example, "inflammable". --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 16:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is actually a good example showing that English "or" is not truth-functional. Because you can't recover the meaning of the doctor's message by doing a Boolean combination of two propositions.  It's true that the patient may take the one, and it's also true that the patient may take the other, so in that sense the doctor's utterance includes the possibility of "both".
 * But you completely lose the meaning of the sentence by interpreting it as a Boolean combination of "you may take the one" and "you may take the other". If you interpret it as truth-functional inclusive-or, then the patient gets no useful information; he can't conclude that he can take the one, and he can't conclude he can take the other, but only that at least one of those must be true.  If you interpret it as truth-functional exclusive-or, his situation is not much better; he can conclude only that exactly one of the two statements is true. --Trovatore (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * (Note that I have elided an important point here, which is that there's a modal operator from deontic logic corresponding to the word "may". That brings in further complications.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Boolean connectives such as AND and OR are used to combine propositions (statements that can be true or false) into more complex propositions, as in [Spock's father is a Vulcan] AND [Spock's mother is human]. In English we use the conjunctions and and or also between other things, such as nouns, adjectives and adverbs. Sometimes such uses can be "explained" as shorthand for the logical use: "Fiaccadori was fluent in Greek and Latin" < [Fiaccadori was fluent in Greek] AND [Fiaccadori was fluent in Latin]. However, this type of "explanation" soon breaks down, even if the compound statement can be interpreted as composed of statements. For example, "most students have a job and study during the weekends" does not mean the same as [most students have a job] AND [most students study during the weekends]. We should distinguish between the use of natural-language conjunctions between statements, for which the original question is meaningful, and other uses, for which the original question has no clear meaning. --Lambiam 08:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also relevant: Just because English lacks a single word to distinguish between "inclusive or" vs. "exclusive or" does not mean that the English language lacks the ability to distinguish between the two. There are many different ways that languages represent meaning, and it isn't always a single word.  English speakers are as capable of expressing the concept of "inclusive or" or "exclusive or" as speakers of languages that have such single words.  One only needs to use an appropriate phrase rather than single word, or use alternate words, or use context and inflection, or any other of a number of ways.  There's many ways to skin a cat, linguistically speaking.  -- Jayron 32 18:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Finnish has inclusive or "tai", and exclusive or "vai" BbBrock (talk) 12:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Suppose you leave Kaarina and Paavo alone in a room with one cookie on the table. When you return the cookie is gone. Who ate the cookie? Paavo says, Kaarina ate the cookie. Kaarina says, Paavo ate the cookie. Can you then state, in Finnish, "Kaarina söi keksin vai Paavo söi keksin", with the meaning "either Kaarina ate the cookie or Paavo ate the cookie"? --Lambiam 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This generated a lot of discussion on a Finnish group I am on. I'm just at the beginning of my Finnish journey. As always the answer is not so simple, but no, you couldn't say this. You can't really use "vai" in a statement, only in a question. Your example would be said "joko Kaarina tai Paavo söi keksin", with the explanation that "joko" makes "tai" exclusive. Finnish is complicated. BbBrock (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)