In a message dated 3/14/2002 2:50:12 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:> >< Oh, that one! But I ditched that a couple of days ago (I lose track of how long because of the high rate of messages). I actually meant, what arrangement of + and - among AEIO. <>But in any case, I don't >quite follow the identity you propose: You're right, I meant to start with {ro broda ro brode cu brodi}. Sorry about that> 'Sall right. You still haven't made enough of that kind of mistake to catch up with me. <The universal/particular, positive/negative characteristics can be changed while we retain the meaning of the sentence. The import cannot be changed. That's why I asked what you meant by "actual quantifier". There is no fixed quantifier for a given meaning, but there is a fixed import.> Interesting. That is a useful thing to notice. What it means in terms of the system I am currently proposing is that the import condition, whichever it is (but usually + ) is a presupposition, that is goes on the front of the sentence after all the other operations are done -- hence the ease of moving negations arount -- the move only in the matrix, not the prefix. <You now seem to favour a system with + import for everything though. At least that means we agree that {Q broda} is equivalent to {Q da poi broda}.> Yes, &'s comments on that seem to me totally compelling (and it is the system I wanted originally anyhow). The equation has to ahve &'s caveats, though: if {Q broda} is a {Q da poi broda}, but not conversely. But, if both are possible, they are equivalent. <Well, at least I can take comfort in the fact that I am not alone in my non-standardness. (I guess I was lucky that doing a search in the web, the first definition I got for "restricted quantification" was the one I was using.)> I've found a couple of other places that use "restricted quantification" in this way, still mainly as a translation device (for which it works rather well, I find as I play with it -- shortens some steps in the procedure). What I call "restricted quantification" still occurs with that name, but more of it seems to be under "many-sorted" or "many-sortal quantification." When I started using the term, 30 years ago or so, the situation was different, because no one was using "restricted quantification" in the currently popular (apparently) way. |