Let's consider the following sentence:
Ducks are things that walk like ducks and quack like ducks.
Now, I wanna negate it to describe something that is not a duck. The most verbose way to do it might probably be something like:
Dogs are things that do not walk like ducks and do not quack like ducks.
While this seems to be grammatically correct to me, the repetition of
does not makes this sentence rather crude. I would like something a bit more concise. My attempt to achieve this could result in something like this:
Dogs are things that do not walk and quack like ducks.
Now I'm not so sure what my phrase actually means. That the dogs do not walk at all but do quack like ducks? That the dogs do not walk like ducks but do quack like ducks? Or, maybe, it actually means what I wanted it to mean: that neither dogs walk like ducks nor they quack like them.
Okay. Maybe I should view this sentence from the position of the formal mathematical logic. What we have here is an A & B construct (walking & quacking), and I'm trying to apply negation to it: !(A & B). Mathematical logic suggests that !(A & B) is equal to !A | !B, that is, not A or not B. So maybe I should switch to a different conjunction? Let's try that:
Dogs are things that do not walk or quack like ducks.
Did that help? Or maybe it made everything even worse? I'm totally confused. Please help me find a balance between being not overly verbose and keeping what I try to say clear.