* Thursday, 2011-11-24 at 21:18 -0300 - Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:41 AM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > Probably not bugs:
> > This might at first seem wrong:
> > > na ku mi noi brode cu broda
> > Prop:!(brode(mi) /\ broda(mi))
>
> It does seem wrong to me. A noi-clause is more like a presupposition,
> not directly part of the claim.
>
> I'd say it's more like:
>
> presupp Prop: brode(mi)
> main Prop: !broda(mi)
Actually: isn't that more what {voi} is (/should be) for?
{noi broda} is veridicial - it affects the truth conditions of the
claim, so it can't be scope-invariant.
{voi broda} is non-veridicial - it doesn't affect the truth conditions,
so is scope-invariant. It just gives hints to help the listener
understand the intended referents of the sumti it's attached to, by
noting that they satisfy broda (or appear to satisfy broda, this being
all that's relevant).
Martin
Attachment:
pgp2_4SpdpSBh.pgp
Description: PGP signature