a/o/e/o/n/n - the Wonderful World of Ambivalent Conjunctions

[elemtilas]

So how do your conlangs handle compound and ambivalent conjunctions?

In Queranaran one can use a coordinating pair of conjunctions, something like in English and...or; or one can use a single conjunction.

wi asa! ata-Inac bay didi-derí and-yrman oiyan anaa lostereng bay milopan oiyan lhqey lostereng
VOC.PTC well! LOC-Inac INTERROG.PTC VOC.3sf PRES.2sm either-or POS.PTC fancy-IMPF INTERROG.PTC PROPHRASE.PROX either-or NEG.PTC fancy-IMPF
wi asa ataʔinaq baj dididɛr'i andjyrman ʊjjan ana: lostɛrɛɴ baj milopan ʊjjan ǃej: lostɛrɛɴ
Well friend, what is it to be? Do you fancy her or do you not fancy her or a little of both or something else?

wi ha.. anaa : didi-derí and-ateh lehan en-lhqey losterer milopan lehan oyo-anaa losterer
VOC.PTC DISC.PTC DISC.PTC : VOC.3sf PRES.1sm and-or AMBIV.PTC-fancy-ITER PROPHRASE.PROX and-or AMBIV-PTC-fancy-ITER
wiha: ana: dididɛr'i andət'eh lɛhan ɛn!ej: lostɛrɛɹ milopan lɛhan ojjoʔana: lostɛrɛɹ
Ah friend, that's just it. Yeah I kind of don't really like her but on the other hand, fit-and-startwise I don't kind of not hate her either.

oiyan has the basic meaning of "either-or but not necessarily one or the other" while lehan means "and-or but also a little of both though not necessarily either one". Adding em-, a slightly positive ambivalence particle and oyo-, a slightly negative ambivalence particle the way he did to the ordinary positive and negative particles simply fortifies the ambivalence of the conjunction and therefore the whole utterance.

NOTES:
milopan (and miloatugan) are demonstrative prophrases, the one more clearly topical the other more distantly so.

The Locative & Vocative of Reference are interesting features of Q. Peripheral reference may be made to a person or thing using any of the "non-verbal" cases (Dative, Locative, Possessive, Instrumental), and of course with slight semantic differences between them. Here in our sentences above, a girl by the name of Inac is being referenced with the locative; this draws the interlocutor's attention and focus on the person being discussed(*). As for the Vocative of Reference, when a person (but not a thing) is either referred to by name, or if pronominally referenced with the antecedent being thus well and specifically known, the name or pronoun is thereafter often found in the vocative case rather than the ergative or absolutive/accusative cases.

(*) Great care must be taken as to which case one uses to refer to a person. na-Inac bay didi-derí and-yrman lusteras -- referring to a person in the instrumental case will at the very least, sound crass or overly lurid, or in this instance, needlessly lewd: That Inac, did you bang her or what!? A boy might respond , you didn't just say that! -- while Inac herself, if she ever heard of it, might be all and and get all on you!

[eldin raigmore]

Interesting!
But tell me;
Why and under what circumstances would such conjunctions be useful?
One can neither derive the truth-value of the full sentence from the truth-values of all the conjugands, not even just for particular values of the conjugands;
nor derive the truth-value of any one of the conjugands from the truth-values of the other conjugands and of the full sentence, not even just for particular values of the full sentence and those other conjugands.
It seems to be useful only as a way of establishing topics without actually saying anything about them.
I assume I'm wrong?
What have I missed?