 Welcome back to our series of videos where we analyse sentence meaning in terms of propositions and predications. The exercises in this video are still relatively simple but they presuppose that you have gone through the e-lecture Predicate Logic 1. And this is our task. Convert the following sentences first into propositions and then into predications. Here are the sentences. John is a funny man. Bill smokes and Mary gets angry. If Bill smokes, Mary won't stay. If you want to do it on your own first, pause the video at this moment and then compare your solutions with mine. Ok, let's start. Here is the first sentence. John is a funny man. In our first example we could provide a very simple analysis and state one proposition. P, John is a funny man, which could be then converted into one simple predication. With a one place predicate, funny man and one argument, John. However, for a more precise formalisation of the meaning, we could break up the proposition into two propositions. John is a man and John is funny. And coordinate these two propositions by means of logical and. Now we can convert each proposition into a simple predication. Man, John, the predicate man, John is a man. And funny John, Q, and connect these two predications by and. And as a result, we would get a complex predication. John is a man and John is funny. And this complex predication is a much better representation of the meaning of the sentence than a simple proposition with a simple predication. In our next example, this principle of coordination becomes more obvious. Because now we have an overt coordinator and which is here. And this coordinator links the two propositions. Again, our two propositions can be converted into individual predications. They're linked by and, but apart from that, it's essentially the same thing. Smoke bill and get angry Mary are our two simple predications and they're connected biological and to form a complex predication. Bill smokes and Mary gets angry. Our final example is an implication where two propositions are in an implicational relationship. If Bill smokes, then Mary won't stay. Just like in our previous examples, the two predications themselves are simple. They involve one place predicates, smoke and stay. Where the second stay is negated by means of the negative connective. Here it is. And as a result, we get an implication with a negative consequence. If T, then not U. If Bill smokes, then Mary does not stay. Okay, so much for now. Here are all examples again. We have three complex propositions. Two of them in a relationship of coordination and the last one in a relationship of an implication. If you're interested in the print version of the solution, well then consult the VLC e-lecture library, which can be reached via mouse click as soon as you're logged in to the virtual linguistics campus. Thanks for your attention.