(11) is an argument schemata because it uses what are called metalanguage variables ‘A’ and ‘B’. These are variables for which you can substitute sentences of your object language (in your case, English). Let A = ‘dogs are black’ and B = ‘cats are happy’ and you get:

Dogs are black or cats are happy.

Dogs are not black.

Why are cats happy?

What are the differences between syntactic construction and syntactico-manufacturing?

A syntactic construction specifies just types of syntactic categories. Why? Unlike “Movement Language”, it don’t use any particular words of the language. If someone writes your text then it is applying the same principle to logic (although not many logicians do). In (elementary) logic, the syntactic categories are sentence, conjunction (also called a two-place connective) and one-place connectives (for example, negation).

What is each of these categories and why all of them have such strings of words? For example:

• sentences : dogs are black, cats are happy,.. conjunctions

• : , or, if…then one-place connectives :

• not A syntactic construction would

only use the category names and not the specific words that belong to those categories. For example:

sentence conjunction sentence

negation sentence

Notice

that I have not used any particular sentences or conjunctions. But (11) does use a particular word belonging to the category conjunction, namely ‘or. In that sense, it is more than a syntactic construction.

Consider resign, which means “without

object “) to submit; produce.”

To reconcile (oneself) to; yield. ( transitive )

This word has a slightly negative connotation. I like to settle in my life without changing.

In this sentence you would

say: “Since our budget is limited, we’ll need to resign ourselves to this cheaper alternative. “Quotation?

Consider resign, which means “without

object “) to submit; produce.”

To reconcile (oneself) to; yield. ( transitive )

This word has a slightly negative connotation. I like to settle in my life without changing.

In this sentence you would

say: “Since our budget is limited, we’ll need to resign ourselves to this cheaper alternative. “Quotation?

Consider guidee, which means one

who is guided.

An example sentence:

“What gives? At

that point ” it doesn’t fit your desired context, though and that’s why I read it. However, you might just want to go with a higher sortal, called “person”: “A

person can only receive guidance from 1 ancestor at a time. In

fact, higher sortals work in all your examples, and are, in my opinion, preferable to using a synonym of “the guided” or “follower”. In your contexts, using the latter actually creates redundancies since the consequent material of all of the sentences make it clear that the contexts are ones of guidance. Why is it not really better to encode information twice?

“The tourist was suddenly stopped by the tour guide”.

The blind man accompanied his guide animal. The man was accompanied by a lion. ”

“The executive was on a tour of the building he helped fund. All

of these sentences contain more information than would the corresponding sentence where the italicized sortal is substitued with a redundant synyonym of “follower”.

Consider:

1. The executive chef entered. He cooked the eggs.
2. Does executive chef enter industry? What did he cook?

(1) implies nothing about whether or not the chef usually cooks the eggs. If a chef does not usually cook the eggs, then it brings out a good dish. That the chef does not usually cook eggs is “new” information, that is, not is not present in (1).

The new information is the example of an implicature not an entailment nor a presumption. Is an implicature cancellable? To see that it’s cancellable, check:

1. The Executive Chef turned in. He cooks the eggs as a child. So you’ll guess it’s just like he cooked the eggs, but he cooked himself. Can you explain that a cocky guy likes this to you?

How do you bake eggs? Is this true that you did not cook eggs, or it can convey that you cooked eggs only, or it can convey that you did it, but with an emphasis on the fact that you did it (perhaps defying expectations) or it can just transmit the boring old proposition that you cooked eggs.

I might go with trivial, which means “simple, transparent, or immediately evident” (sense 4b. here ).

• Not to be trivial, but unexpected events, are, well, unexpected. If

I’m asking a question you are writing and I can’t explain a literal answer to this question, why

is it so important?