Language desk
< May 30	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	June 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 31

And/or

"And/or" is such a commonly used term that I'm surprised that there isn't a proper English word for this concept. Does any other language have a word for it? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:D41B:1D13:2B76:1781 (talk) 04:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for languages that have a concise way of contrasting inclusive and exclusive 'or'? —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled And/or which has some reading. It also has links to further articles which may help you in your research. --Jayron 32 12:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that "and/or" is absolutely dreadful English; it creates ambiguity. And includes or, and the correct way to indicate an exclusive (disjunctive) or is simple: X or Y, but not both. Neutrality^talk 14:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "And" does not always include the case where only one of the items is required. If a jobs says "Requirements are a 4 year degree and 10 years experience", that does NOT mean either one alone is sufficient. Perhaps you meant that "or" includes both. That's not always true either. If a menu says "Each entree includes a salad or side", that does not mean you get both. So, to make it absolutely clear, you must say "both are required", "only one is allowed", or "and/or" may be used for the case where either one or both is allowed. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In your example, the word "requirement" makes clear that both are required. So let me rephrase: the word and without additional qualifiers often includes or. Neutrality^talk 19:56, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, but that "often" makes it is ambiguous, and that's where the "and/or" comes in, to explicitly say that one or both are acceptable. StuRat (talk) 21:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you want to say that something can be and be X or Y, or both, say "X or Y or both", as described at Logical_disjunction. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And/or is not ambiguous. Given two possibilities A and B, "and/or" means it could be A, it could be B, or it could be both A and B. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A simple skim of our article would indicate otherwise. Also, you simply aren't qualified to make that judgement. Just because you know what the term means in your own interpretation, does not mean other people cannot justifiably interpret it in another way ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph of the article matches exactly with what I said immediately above, except the article uses A, B and C instead of just A and B. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pay note, according to our article (and supported by casual logical analysis) "And/or" is '"an "accuracy-destroying symbol," and "meaningless."" it "is particularly harmful in legal writing". So it is best to not use "And/or", ever ;) We have perfectly good words such as "and", "or" and "XOR", and "And/or" simply cannot add any unambiguously meaningful semantic content.

Now, perhaps you weren't interested in that specific grouping, but are interested in the way we use the slash to join words together? In that case, see Slash_(punctuation)#Connecting_alternatives. The slash is also known as a solidus, and we have a nice reference to [1], which explains how the solidus is used to connect words in books that follow the Hart's Rules style guide. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph of the article demonstrates that it is not ambiguous, at least not to a native speaker of English. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:30, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bugs. To my native English language ear (native-speaking ear?), it is absolutely clear that "A and/or B" means "A or B or both". I always avoid using it because, as our article points out, some people think it is ugly, and others don't seem to understand its precise meaning. Loraof (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article demonstrates no such thing. It offers an accepted interpretation, but then the article then goes on to list several criticisms, including the inherent ambiguity in the construction. It lists several references that say the construction is confusing and should be avoided. Just because you personally do not understandwhy or how the symbol can be interpreted in different ways does not mean it cannot be interpreted in different ways. You have given your opinion, now let it rest and let readers use the provided references and come to their own conclusions. Some readers may choose to follow the interpretation of Baseball Bugs, while others may choose to follow the advice of Strunk & White ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not demonstrate "the inherent ambiguity in the comstruction". It offers references to some who claim there is an inherent ambiguity, but it does not offer any possible interpretations other than the dictionary meaning "either A or B or both".

Now the word "or" is problematic and should be avoided unless the context is clear. (1) It can mean the inclusive "or". (2) It can mean the exclusive "or". (3) It can introduce an appositive: "an equilateral triangle, or a triangle with three equal sides"—it's not clear to the uninitiated that this means the two parts are synonyms, rather than alternatives (though the presence or absense of the comma may give a hint as to the writer's intent—a comma may signify an appositive, while the absense of a comma may signify alternatives, unless the writer doesn't use commas that way). I favor using "A or B or both" for (1); "either A or B" for (2); and "or equivalently" for (3). Loraof (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant be imply both the article and the refs therein, but I see there was some ambiguity in my words :) I hope you'll agree that a single article also cannot demonstrate a lack of ambiguity either. If you want specific examples and discussion of the ambiguity, see refs 11 and 12. These are particularly notable because they touch on the legal problems caused by the ambiguity in the symbol. Since there seems to be considerable confusion on the matter, I will spell out how a variety of distinct logical interpretations are valid, starting from a variety of possible logical interpretations of the symbols "or", and "/." I will assume that by "and" we mean logical conjunction in all cases. As you note, "or" itself is ambiguous without context, so I will use XOR for exclusive or and IOR for inclusive or to avoid ambiguity in the following examples. In each case, all I do is use the truth table definition of each binary operator, then use the standard rules of sentence logic to determine the truth of the compound connective. After finding the truth values of the compound connective, I then look at the standard table of 16 binary logical operators to see which one And/or is equal to in that case.

If by "or" we mean "logical disjunction (IOR), and by "/" we mean "IOR", then "And/or" means IOR. If we take the "/" to mean "and", and leave the other assignments alone then "And/or" means "IOR".
If we take "or" to mean XOR and "/" to mean "and", then "And/or" is a connective that cannot be logically satisfied and any sentence using it as a connective will be false, i.e. a contradiction. In this case, "And/or" is the "false operator" F, also sometimes denoted with the Up_tack.
If we take "/" to mean XOR and "or" to mean IOR then "And/or" reduces to XOR.

The curious reader can complete similar exercises on their own time, as there are additional valid interpretations I have left out. The point of this exercise is to demonstrate have "And/or" interpreted as IOR, XOR, and ⊥, depending on what we think "or" and "/" might mean. Anyone is welcome to feel that one of these is the "correct" interpretation of "And/or", but all of them are valid logical interpretations, supported but standard truth tables for binary logical operators. This is why many legal experts and style experts (WP:OR and logic experts) suggest the term be avoided whenever clarity is sought. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my interpretation, it's what the article says. If the article is wrong, you should fix it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is fine, it's your reading comprehension and possibly grasp of logic that needs help. But try as I might, I fear I may fail to improve either of those things. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I agree with the article's statement of what "and/or" means, I don't know what you're on about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs isn't showing insufficient reading comprehension, nor an insufficient grasp of logic. You are making the mistake of thinking that meaning in a natural language can always be found by breaking something down into smaller components. Natural language doesn't work that way. In English the compound word "and/or" has a single meaning according to the dictionaries I've checked, and that meaning is not the sum of its components. It may be an ugly word, but words carry the meaning that is arbitrarily assigned to them, not the meaning that it sounds like they ought to have. Loraof (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that natural language doesn't always follow logic. But our article lists several RS describing ambiguity in the word, including citations to top style guides and court cases. Additionally, I have just presented three different interpretations, none of which are objectively incorrect. So if anyone persists in claiming "the article demonstrates that it is not ambiguous", yes, I will question their reading comprehension. One last ref before I give up on convincing people of the obvious: here's a link [2] to the record of a court case cited in our article. It says in part: "The petition is next challenged because of the use of the conjunctive, alternative phrase 'and/or'" - emphasis mine. It is my opinion that this clearly demonstrates the ambiguity in the word, to the extent that a state supreme court had to be called upon to make a judicial ruling in the matter. There is an important distinction between "this is a common way a phrase is interpreted" and "this phrase has one unambiguous meaning" SemanticMantis (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article lists one source, a Bryan Garner, claiming that the term is ambiguous, and gives this more weight than the consensus of "other sources" that it isn't. (It also mixes stylistic objections with the claim of ambiguity.) This is bad Wikipedia writing. --69.159.60.83 (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A rather better quote from the same case: "In the matter of the use of the alternative, conjunctive phrase 'and/or,' it is sufficient to say that we do not hold this to be reversible error, but we take our position with that distinguished company of lawyers who have condemned its use. It is one of those inexcusable barbarisms which was sired by indolence and dammed by indifference, and has no more place in legal terminology than the vernacular of Uncle Remus has in Holy Writ. I am unable to divine how such senseless jargon becomes current. The coiner of it certainly had no appreciation for terse and concise law English". Though I notice that the header of the page includes the phrase "Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase". MChesterMC (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tried reading that legal case, but I don't think I have the legal training (or patience) to work out what the issue with "and/or" is - and the quote provided by MChesterMC looks to me to be just (rather pretentious) complaining about a phrase they don't like, rather than an explanation of why it is misleading. As for our And/or - it gives a clear and unambiguous description of what it means and how its used, followed by references to complaints that it is ambiguous (with no explanation why), and more complaints that it is "ugly".

As to the question about other languages, there's at least a definite "sort of". In classical Latin aut conveys the exclusive sense of "or" (one or the other but not both) while vel is available for other uses, including the inclusive "and/or" sense. See Cassell's Latin Dictionary. If Wiktionary is correct, Polish has a similar distinction between albo and lub. --21:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's correct, although most Polish people who are not lawyers or mathematicians use albo and lub rather interchangeably. — Kpalion^(talk) 22:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow; thanks, folks! There's much to digest up there. ↑ (And it didn't occur to me that WP would have an article: And/or) --OP=2606:A000:4C0C:E200:815D:E1A4:3737:B2F2 (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- To further complicate things, I've seen cases where more than two items are included, meaning "either A or B or C... or any combination thereof". --OP:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:815D:E1A4:3737:B2F2 (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see people are still missing a very simple reason the courts hate it. It's not just pretention and style, it is a functional concern of how language affects legal scope and contractual obligations! To wit: if "X and/or Y" occurs in a contract, then one party can claim that using only one of "and", or "or" is an acceptable reading, while the other party has a different understanding of the term So then party A says "the contract was not satisfied because party B did not do X and Y". Party B says the contract was satisfied because he fulfilled X, and that satisfies "X or Y", which is part of the meaning of "X and/or Y". The law gets annoyed and cannot find a legal framework for saying who is right, so that whole bit is invalidated. This is sort of what happened in the above case. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were inventing ambiguity where there isn't any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really ambiguity in the usual sense. Yes, it's a terrible idea for a legal document which requires clarity and precision, and where it's unlikely that 'and' and 'or' will simultaneously be useful. It's fine in other situations where it's useful to indicate inclusive or in contrast to exclusive or. 142.205.241.253 (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The legal objection might come down to this: Party B says the contract was satisfied because he fulfilled X, and that satisfies "X or Y", which is part of the meaning of "X and/or Y". The court might be in doubt whether Party B was obligated to fulfill X and Y, and if not that, then just Y. Akld guy (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has been playing around with this discussion. Here are the missing posts, which should make things clear:

The phrase "any or all of ..." is common. 92.8.222.107 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the fault of the language, it's the fault of the lawyers (they are paid to argue on behalf of their clients). If a contract says "the landlord shall provide a supply of electricity and/or gas" he has three choices: he can provide electricity or gas or both - no judge worth his salt will rule that he must provide both. 86.136.230.75 (talk) 04:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does this sign say?

I saw this sign in Otaniemi, Espoo, Finland. It says something in Arabic, but what does it say? JIP | Talk 16:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikt:كابل, it means "Kabul".—Wavelength (talk) 17:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps "cable" in Persian. Deor (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Kabul. 78.145.19.237 (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could probably choose between the alternatives if we had context, but out of interest, why is there a Farsi/Arabic sign in Finland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.19.237 (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first guess is, this is a phonetic joke (quite smart) about the exact same yellow signs one can see quite often in Finland, face to face one on each of two islands, that say "Kaapeli" or "Cable" or "Kabel" in the same bold black letters, to indicate where a cable lies under sea water or under lake water between two islands. (Google "cable sign finland" to find some images examples) Akseli9 (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this idea. There are such signs all over the place by the sea shore in the capital region at least. This "Kabul" thing would be a good pun, but extremely few native Finnish speakers can read Arabic, and this particular sign was not placed anywhere near the sea shore. But still, it is located at the HUT campus of Aalto University, and the students there are known for their practical jokes. JIP | Talk 20:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Pashto article about Kabul at ps:ﻛﺎﺑﻞ.—Wavelength (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]