In 1a, 1f, and 1g, we have a condensed form. That is, John and
Mary voted is true exactly when John voted
Mary
voted. Similarly, 2a, 2b, and
2c all expand the same way; there is no
difference in extension between John bumped Mary and Bob and
John bumped Mary
John bumped Bob.
The cases of 1b and 1c seem to need
a more complicated interpretation. We can't just say that John
and Mary kissed is true when John kissed
Mary
kissed because each of those components is meaningless on its own.
It makes no sense to say that a single person kissed. We need
something more like John kissed Mary
Mary kissed
John.
The cases of 3a, 3b, 3c, and 3d are complicated because they
have at least two possible extensions. The first is that John
and Mary met Bob and Sue is true exactly when John met Bob
John met Sue
Mary met Bob
Mary met Sue. The other is John met Bob
Mary met Sue.
The final, slightly troublesome, one is the case of
1e. If we want to treat it like the others we'd
have to say John collided with Mary
Mary
collided with John. What is distasteful about this is non only that
we're adding words, but that collided seems somehow more
natural in its original form while the collided with form
sounds like a workaround to bend the verb to our will. Consider what
happens if we say that collided - not collided with -
is a verb that takes two arguments of equal status? Then we can just
use the reflexive case of kissed in a slightly wasteful
manner.