Consider the sentence:
His words include the commentaries on Upanishads, commentaries on the Brahma Soothras and Upadheshasahasri.
It was originally:
His words include the commentaries on Upanishads, Brahma Soothras and Upadheshasahasri.
Now the thing is, both Upanishads and Brahma Soothras have commentaries, but Upadheshasahasri is a separate text. But that is not obvious without context. So I turned it into the first sentence.
But even then, it is still ambiguous whether it refers to a commentary of a work called Upadheshasahasri.
So code would make it clear like:
His words include the “commentaries on Upanishads”, “commentaries on the Brahma Soothras” and “Upadheshasahasri”.
or
His words include the “commentaries on Upanishads and the Brahma Soothras” and “Upadheshasahasri”.
I guess a better first sentence could have been
His words include the commentaries on the Upanishads and the Brahma Soothras and Upadheshasahasri.
But well, even if it’s a grammar issue, communication often works. This points to the idea that rigid logic needs to be strong in grammar, and it is also possible that it needs more than the structure available in the grammar of natural language.