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.
