Comments on: Conjunctions in named entities http://blog.outerthoughts.com/2009/03/conjunctions-in-named-entities/ > From inner thoughts to the outer limits of Alexandre Rafalovitch Mon, 03 Oct 2011 22:01:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Michael http://blog.outerthoughts.com/2009/03/conjunctions-in-named-entities/comment-page-1/#comment-80049 Michael Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:26:08 +0000 http://blog.outerthoughts.com/?p=273#comment-80049 What does it mean to treat "Wallace and Gromit" as a unit ? If Wallace and Gromit have a Grand Day Out, we can infer that Wallace had a Grand Day Out. If Wallace and Gromit lifted a piano, ate a pound of Wensleydale cheese, or played a duet, we can't infer that Wallace lifted a piano, ate a pound of Wensleydale cheese, or sang a duet. "Wallace and Gromit" does not name one thing, composed of a (clay) man and a (clay) dog, a thing that has a dog as a part. Nor is it the name of two things (which would have to be Wallace and Gromit, and neither has this name, so both don't). "Wallace and Gromit" is a plural referring expression. What does it mean to treat “Wallace and Gromit” as a unit ? If Wallace and Gromit have a Grand Day Out, we can infer that Wallace had a Grand Day Out. If Wallace and Gromit lifted a piano, ate a pound of Wensleydale cheese, or played a duet, we can’t infer that Wallace lifted a piano, ate a pound of Wensleydale cheese, or sang a duet. “Wallace and Gromit” does not name one thing, composed of a (clay) man and a (clay) dog, a thing that has a dog as a part. Nor is it the name of two things (which would have to be Wallace and Gromit, and neither has this name, so both don’t). “Wallace and Gromit” is a plural referring expression.

]]> By: admin http://blog.outerthoughts.com/2009/03/conjunctions-in-named-entities/comment-page-1/#comment-10250 admin Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:02:22 +0000 http://blog.outerthoughts.com/?p=273#comment-10250 Thanks for the comment Chris. Original article is a good place for that discussion. I will add a comment there. Thanks for the comment Chris. Original article is a good place for that discussion. I will add a comment there.

]]> By: Chris Brew http://blog.outerthoughts.com/2009/03/conjunctions-in-named-entities/comment-page-1/#comment-10199 Chris Brew Fri, 27 Mar 2009 14:02:28 +0000 http://blog.outerthoughts.com/?p=273#comment-10199 I posted a comment on the LingPipe blog entry. I agree with you that the conjunction draft resolution A/56/L.28 and Add.1 refers to one object, namely a resolution, that can be voted on. They could have written draft resolution A/56/L.28 as modified by Add.1 and it would have meant the same, but that is not necessary, because shared knowledge of the conventions for resolutions makes the "and" have the same effect. I posted a comment on the LingPipe blog entry. I agree with you that the
conjunction

draft resolution A/56/L.28 and Add.1

refers to one object, namely a resolution, that can be voted on.
They could have written

draft resolution A/56/L.28 as modified by Add.1

and it would have meant the same, but that is not necessary, because shared knowledge of the conventions for resolutions makes the “and” have the same effect.

]]>