Return-Path: Received: by marob.masa.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id ; Fri, 1 Jun 90 07:46 EDT Received: by wetblu.hollander.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.16.1 #16.12) id ; Fri, 1 Jun 90 07:21 EDT Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP id AA22895; Fri, 1 Jun 90 06:03:45 -0400 Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore Jan 13 1990) id AA16403; Fri, 1 Jun 90 05:30:01 EDT Received: by snark.uu.net (smail2.3) id AA19287; 1 Jun 90 04:26:19 EDT (Fri) To: marob.masa.com!cowan Subject: Re: addendum to 8 versions of an English sentence by John Cowna Date: 1 Jun 90 04:26:19 EDT (Fri) From: wetblu!uunet!cbmvax!snark.uu.net!lojbab Message-Id: <9006010426.AA19287@snark.uu.net> Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Fri Jun 1 07:46:54 1990 X-From-Space-Address: wetblu!uunet!cbmvax!snark!lojbab Your new attempt is grammatical, and may be OK, but it may have different effects with respect to logical quantification. Since we talked, I checked with pc, and he says that the problems of intensional predicates lies in what logical operations can be performed on them, in particular the exporting of quantifiers to a prenex. The subject is apparently intensely complicated, and we will no doubt have to have refined rules for allowed manipulations for these predicates. pc will be thinking about the problem between now and LogFest, and I don't expect any bright ideas before then. -lojbab