From hombre!uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu!lee Sat Jun 2 06:48:58 1990 Return-Path: Received: by marob.masa.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id ; Sat, 2 Jun 90 06:48 EDT Received: by hombre.MASA.COM (smail2.5) id AA08195; 2 Jun 90 06:56:34 EDT (Sat) Received: from uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.3/3.06) id AA22327; Fri, 1 Jun 90 09:55:09 EDT Received: by uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (5.61/Ultrix3.1) id AA11312; Fri, 1 Jun 90 03:55:08 -1000 Message-Id: <9006011355.AA11312@uhccux.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu> From: uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu!lee (Greg Lee) Date: Fri, 1 Jun 1990 03:55:07 GMT-10 In-Reply-To: cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan) "Re: possible readings of "John seeks a bike or a fish"" (May 31, 12:12pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.1.1 5/02/90) To: marob.masa.com!cowan (John Cowan) Subject: Re: possible readings of "John seeks a bike or a fish" Status: RO } scope is no problem given the large number of explicit left and right } markers for grammatical constructs Then if `le' and `lo' distinguish narrow and wide scope of descriptions, and if there is another, more general, means of indicating scope, why have `le' and `lo'? Or, at least, why use them to distinguish scopes in the kind of case that was being discussed? (Which did not involve definiteness.) It misrepresents the distinction involved as having to do with a property, when it is really relational. -- Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (lee@uhccux on Bitnet)