[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [jboske] McCawley on existential import



pc:
> a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:
> <<
> I can't find where McCawley says the universal quantifier has
> existential import. Is it distinct from his advocacy of
> restricted quantification?
> >>
> I am working from memory, so I can't point you more accuraely than I 
> did: right after the discussion of Logic's way of dealing with "all S 
> is P." It may be, in fact , that this is about restricted 
> quantification and never mentions existential import. It may even be 
> that existentila import is not even implicit in the discussion, 
> though I would find that odd of McCawley.

Thanks. I know where you mean & will look again. My recollection is
that he deals with RQ and not existential import.

It seems to me -- & I wonder whether you agree with this -- that
the issue of whether (1) and (2) entail (3) depends on whether
or not the quantification is restricted.

1. ro broda cu brode
2. ro da poi broda cu brode
3. da broda

I can sympathize with the view that wants to take 1-2 as involving
restricted quantification, though I'm still not yet in favour of it.

--And.