But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?

But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?

But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?

But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?

But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?

But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?

But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?

But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?

But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?

But clearly this is a phrase that cannot be understood. Is this all nonsense? The author of whatever you’re quoting says of his schema (11), “first premise is not just two sentencelinked by a conjunction, it is also important what conjunction we are dealing with. But look at the schema (11) — it has ” or”, not any general conjunction or any other conjunction. Why just as “or” does? Right there is it, in black and white.

If all that could prevent (11) from being a semantic schema is that no conjunction other than “or” could connect A and B, then since “or” is required as the specific conjunction connecting A and B, after all, is a semantic schema.

Is it true that this is from a handout that was not adequately proof read?

Is there any place in India to live in future?