<p>I'm pretty sure that your statement implies that both the dogs and the cats are making a fuss. I don't have perfect grammar but I'm pretty sure that's how it goes.</p>
<p>I don't understand a word of what you're saying, but I can tell you that in your OP, both the cats and the dogs are on the roof. That is pretty much standard English. Please don't throw big words at me like relative and proceding...let alone the word noun.</p>
<p>I think the confusion rests on whether dogs and cats are to be considered as a compound entity or as two separate entities. If we consider the subject as 2 separate entities then there may be a question as to which "dogs" or "cats" we are referring to. </p>
<p>Correctly, context would dictate whether said subject is a compound entity or two separate entities. However, a single sentence in isolation does afford us the ability to distinguish between these two categorizations. Hence, unless there is some other contextual cue in the sentence we must assume that "cats and dogs" is a single, albeit compound, entity. </p>
<p>Hence, everyone is correct. Relative pronouns only refer to the directly preceding noun, lest we have a situation of an ambiguous reference. But the directly preceding noun is a compound entity hence it is the case that both the dogs and the cats are on the roof and both the canines as well as the felines are making a fuss (who says "making a fuss" anymore?). </p>
<p>Enjoy that chicken-perhaps that's why the dogs and cats are making a fuss?</p>
<p>That sentence is just unclear -- most people would interpret it to mean that the dogs and cats were all on the roof, but it is definitely vague. Interpretation for a sentence like this usually depends on context.</p>