I was going through Hodges' Introduction to Elementary Logic and was rather puzzled by a section where one is asked to translate an argument into a predicate interpretation.

The entire thing reads:

> 
> No man may be beaten with above forty stripes; nor may any true gentlemen be punished with shipping, unless his crime be very shameful, and his course of life vicious and profligate. John Doe Jr is a true gentleman, and, though his crime is in truth very shameful, his course of life is in no manner vicious and profligate. Therefore, John Doe Jr may not be punished with shipping.
> 
> 
> 

However, it is only the section

> 
> nor may any true gentlemen be punished with shipping, unless his crime be very shameful, and his course of life vicious and profligate
> 
> 
> 

that I am concerned with- with the given interpretation:

M: No man may be beaten with above forty stripes

Gx: x is a true gentleman

Cx: x's crime is very shameful

Lx: x's course of life is vicious and profligate

Sx: x may be punished with shipping

The translation of that excerpt is given as ∀x[Gx->[¬SxV[Cx∧Lx]]], though, considering that the disjunct truth functor V allows the sentence functor [φVψ] to be true when both sentence variables are also true, doesn't this mean there is a situation where there is a true gentleman who may *not* be punished with shipping and who has both committed a very shameful crime and who has a vicious and profligate course of life? Is a weak reading being applied? Apologies if this is rather a trivial question- I am going through the book by myself and have no tutors to consult.