prefer linguistic forms, as they’re more “unraveled” as it were. But then again, I find myself with the same complaints about symbol usage in general. I also didn’t use acronyms and abbreviations beyond common ones while I was in IT (like IT – I’d use that one) because I like showing off to regular people and if a passer-by happened to walk by, they’d know what *I* was talking about. I don’t need to APPEAR to be a wizard tongue emoticon So, I suppose it’s been a political stances (or ethical? moral? social? danged if I know the category)
I know people who live on Wikipedia editing. They have their areas of expertise and set themselves up as authoritative sources. You can see them in action in the “Talk” section.
A few Philosophers have set up their Philosopher-King thrones in Wikipedia and have ‘guided’ the language to suit their philosophical bias. Thankfully, over time, little corrections here and there have improved it, but there’s still a lot to be done.
For a time, the various religious entries were ENTIRELY trashed by a New Atheist perspective but thankfully some more theologically minded editors showed up and made corrections. But I remember reading a few where I wanted to scream, “WHO THE HELL WROTE THIS!?”
I’m glad their entries on Byzantine history are _improving_… but they still have a lot of work to be done. A lot.
You’re right. I went brain-dead for a moment.
The “or”-ness in the linguistic adjunct is that it’s separate, creating a “mood” impression of the speaker typically, and is otherwise unrelated.. except in that it “taints” the truth-ness of the statement.
But disjunct is an EITHER OR BOTH in logic.
Yet they’re related.
“Yet also” [both]
“Yet” [on the other hand / or]
My tie is crooked yet my booty is purple.
The evaluation of the truth-ness of a statement requires human evaluation in any case.. or at least a decent database to work as a substitute for living human truth evaluation. The database can be as simple as a set of constants or variables.
I appreciate “As far as I can tell” by the way.
It may appear to be an disjunct linguistically only.
But it’s not.
It assisted in my truth evaluation.
For me, your linguistic disjunct gave an “openness”; a measure of uncertainty to your own truth statement.
Had you not used the linguistic disjunct, I might not have re-evaluated my previous statement’s truth-ness for then you would have declared an absolute truthness, which I get contrary about. tongue emoticon
PS – for me, it’s always BOTH.
The challenge is finding the connection.
Sometimes it’s several levels ‘up’ but it’s there.