From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 14 08:12:13 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:12:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GutBX-0008H7-TB for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:11:52 -0800 Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.233]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GutB9-0008Gg-Ku for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:11:51 -0800 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id i11so227329wra for ; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:11:26 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=G77BKeBVTTwwLMOr7iWxL52I5Rzf51KpiKtQqEUhkZk3aKgiHUNhr6fv+0fPi4SOJR0Ih57LPZADfWHVXncSlbjLI9iyP//Te5u4qIRcxq8fBgA4U/Zk9RgnHf4hx+VeO+/GiMXniESQ7oaI+y1UFoma7ZFMz47LsW/1EXBzF6E= Received: by 10.90.65.11 with SMTP id n11mr553921aga.1166112686431; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:11:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.90.81.8 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Dec 2006 08:11:25 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <975a94850612140811g34d5f43ay278323c463f2538d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 10:11:25 -0600 From: "Joel Shellman" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Using continuations to model quantifiers, focus, and coordination In-Reply-To: <45816F09.4060602@ropine.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <45816F09.4060602@ropine.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8951f448e3e3cef8 X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 13361 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: joel@mentics.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list > There is a theory of grammar that maps sentences onto logical functions, > but this theory has trouble handling quantifiers like "everyone", > "someone", and "only". If I want to parse "Matt spoke", I can treat > "Matt" as an individual and treat "spoke" as a function that maps an > individual onto a truth value (given X, did X speak?). But if I use the > same system to parse "Everyone spoke", "everyone" is not an individual > but a function in itself (given an individual X and an action Y, did X > do Y?). Furthermore, if we turn to the sentence "Matt spoke to > everyone", it seems like we need to interpret "everyone" as a function > of another type. I'm not sure I follow. To me, everyone is the set of all people (or possibly less or different depending on context--"everyone in the room" is the set of all people present in that room). Applying functions on sets shouldn't be a problem, is it? To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.