Your question is rather strange, it mixes rather heterogeneous things, and the example you have chosen to introduce it and help your readers answer it is completely inadequate, for reasons already pointed out in part by user66554.
If what you really want to know is whether ellipsis is subject to rules as rigid as those that govern the construction of phrases, the answer is yes.
If by 'abbreviation' you mean the diverse strategies used to reduce the redundance (concerning the phonetic content or the graphic representation) of expressions used in context, that includes at least two kinds of resources, one syntactic, the other not. Syntactic abbreviation resources include coordination, substitution by pro-forms, ellipsis, and the use of sentence fragments (in focus) instead of full sentences, and those are also subject to rules and principles as rigid as those that govern the construction of the corresponding unabridged expressions, depend closely on such 'basic' construction rules, and can be formulated with the same degree of accuracy. As to non-syntactic 'abbreviation' devices, e.g., the use of acronyms like NATO, USA, TV etc., the use telly or fridge for television or refrigerator, Mr. for Mister, etc. (there is enormous variety in this chapter, see e.g. Hans Marchand's English Word Formation), the answer is that they are also subject to rules that can be accurately formulated, but they are lexical, morphological and/or phonological rules that by their very nature apply less generally than 'basic' syntactic rules because the development of the lexicon is subject to contextual and historical factors that tend to produce irregularities, exceptions, or plain singularities, as is well known.
However, as I said, your example - which is colloquial at best, but not really well formed, either syntactically or semantically, for reason also pointed out by user66554 - is not appropriate as an illustration of almost any of those resources except coordination (with or without ellipsis of black before wings depending on the scope assigned to black, which alters the sentence's truth conditions), but that is not what seems to worry you, since you focus the discussion leading to your question on the use of with instead of and, which is deviant, and, anyway, not an instance of 'abbreviation' in any of the senses relevant to this discussion.