Currently rank 9 and i have a squad boost to use , tonight is the night i unlock it . <| sep |> Did you just assume OP ' s gender ? <| sep |> And mostly boring . This is a Bernie sub whomp whomp . <| sep |>' s an ICE battlemech during the dark age . Never used it in battle . Edit correction it ' s the tundra wolf <| sep |> Yeah but zombies got big very quickly and they added DLC . How hard of a fix could it really be ? <| sep |> I already find your data more or less convincing for ' minus ' being a coordinate head in any event , it ' s clearly not a verb ! . I ' d like to add to your argument a few observations of my own , just as a way of keeping the discussion around it being coordination focused . First , perhaps you or someone else knows a reference for this I couldn ' t find it in Munn ' s dissertation , but I have a vague recollection that conjuncts can be iterated without limit , while generally other categories cannot . Expressions with minus also seem to be iterable , which would make them pattern closer to coordinate structures . Second , if minus is a P , it also behaves a bit unlike other Ps in its semantic type . Most Ps seem to be typed as relations between individuals type e , et , and so they ' re typed as properties functions from individuals to truth values , e , t once their first argument is saturated . However , minus intuitively must be typed n , nn , a function from two numbers to another number . This type isn ' t bizarre , thoughit ' s a relative of the type of and when it ' s used to coordinate nonquantificational , individualdenoting NPs e . g . , and is argued by many to be type e , ee in John and Mary , requiring two individuals and yielding a new individual . In an ideal world , the fact that minus seems to require this type should also point to it being a coordinate head . Third , if it ' s a P , then minus three is a PP . PP adjuncts generally don ' t interact scopally with other PP adjuncts modifying the same category . Mathematical expressions like minus three and times ten do seem to interact with each other semantically , though , giving rise to ordering effects . Fourth , a related mathematical operator does have a clear coordinate head counterpart plus with and and it ' s trivial to see that speakers use and to mean addition in many situations , which is what matters when we ' re talking about language . I see no obvious reason to think that plus and minus should be different categories , and so I ' m happy to make them both coordinate heads based on the behavior of plus . It ' s a bit confusing to me why so much of the discussion has turned on whether minus behaves like without , when the comparison of minus and plus is so obvious to make . Additionally , there ' s been proposals in the literature for a covert coordinate head encoding the semantics of addition at work in numerals such as twenty one twenty ADD one and one hundred and one hundred ADD one see Ionin and Matushansky , 2006 , for instance , and I ' ve also assumed this in recent work . Anyway , although none of these arguments is a complete knockdown argument , my impression is that there ' s a preponderance of evidence yours and mine pointing towards minus being an instance of coordination , rather than a preposition . Ionin , T . and Matushansky , O . 2006 . The composition of complex cardinals . Journal of Semantics , 23315360 . Munn , A . 1993 . Topics in the syntax and semantics of coordinate structures . PhD thesis , University of Maryland .