* Tuesday, 2011-09-20 at 21:16 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > The problems with counting and so on which arise when we mix kinds and
> > instances could be rectified by simply declaring that {da} and
> > {[quantifier] [selbri]} never get kinds - i.e. the corresponding
> > variables are over 'mundane' singular objects (AT minus K, in
> > Chierchia's notation).
>
> What would you then say of these:
>
> ro klesi be lo gerku cu gerku
>
> lo xanto cu bramau ro drata ke tumla danlu
>
> lo remna cu se tuple re da
I would say that they are false.
For the first, I don't think that's a problem.
For the third: it could be replaced by {lo remna cu ckaji lo ka se tuple
re da}, or by a tanru - {lo remna cu re mei se tuple} - or by an
explicit generic quantifier, which {so'e} arguably is: {so'e remna cu se
tuple re da}.
The second is toughest, and a good demonstration of the power of
kind-quantification, but since it is in the end a case of generics,
I think it can be handled similarly:
{so'e xanto cu bramau so'e tumla danlu poi na xanto}
That doesn't help with a pure kind predication, though. For that, e.g.
"I like all animal species", you'd have to be explicit about the kind
predication:
{mi nelci ro ka danlu ma kau}
(assuming {ka} and qkau work so as to make that work)
In general, it seems to me that kind predications resolve as one of
* existential quantification
* generic quantification
* property predication
{lo broda} might allow you to be ambiguous between the three, but for
complicated sentences you'd have to say what you mean.
Is that so bad?
> > I suggested something like this before, and I think you complained that
> > we shouldn't be separating out kinds from mundanes... but since
> > Chierchia does it, I feel licensed to push again for an explanation of
> > what would go so wrong if we did separate them out.
>
> I see no major problem in separating the metalinguistic construct
> "kind", as defined for example by Chierchia, for contexts in which
> they appear together with their manifestations. My only problem would
> be if you forbid saying things like (quote) "My two favourite things
> are to cycle and to go to the cinema alone", i.e. if you don't allow
> "to cycle" and "to go to the cinema alone" to count as things in any
> context.
So I think I'd want to make that
{lo ka nu mi relxilma'e sazri ku joi lo ka nu mi nonkansa ve skina cu
remei traji lo ka mi nelci}.
Martin
Attachment:
pgpZ7kOlVnL2f.pgp
Description: PGP signature