Assume that questions can be conjoined with other questions, e.g.:
- Who is Shawn Balt? What is prawn salt?
- Who is Shawn Balt and what is prawn salt?
Assume that wh-terms are (plurally) agglomerative when either conjunct shares the same wh-type:
- Why is Shawn Balt and why is prawn salt? Where is Shangri-La and where are Tlön's halls?
- Why is Shawn Balt and prawn salt? (Note: take "is" for "does ____ exist," so that we could go from, "Why does Shawn exist and why does that salt exist?" to, "Why do Shawn and that salt exist?") Where are Shangri-La and Tlön's halls?
However, is there something "off-key" about conjoining an assertion and a question? I don't know, but my "radar" is blipping on both sides:
- I will yawn/halt and who is Juan Walt?
- Also disjunction sounds even more "out of tune" here: I am a prawn malt or why are these fronds small?
I don't quite understand why (5) and (6) sound "wrong" to me; they don't seem inferential, and so maybe they seem nonlogical somehow, but I'm not clearly seeing it. Actually, I can also see that sometimes people say things like (5) or (6), or I seem to remember there being everyday turns of phrase that go like that (c.f., "Go to the store or we'll run out of prawn salt," as an example of disjoining an imperative and an assertion).
If conjunction as used to bridge questions and assertions has no real inferential value and seems to generate "syntactically self-irrelevant"(?) sentences, but otherwise has no contralogical meaning, is it still pure logical conjunction?