On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 06:42:53PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
> Howsabout going back to the basics of "any" in English?
>
> It is a context leaper, a universal embedded in a verso context
> with scope over the whole in which the context is subordinate.
> So, what we want is Ax Greenx I seek x.
I already asked you two days ago to explain your notation, please.
Does this mean something like "forall x : Green(x).(seek(I, x))"
or "A(x) => Green(x) => seek(I, x)" or "forall x. Green(x) => seek(I, x)"
...
> Not, notice, {mi sisku ro crino}, because {sisku}(in the thing sense,
> not the property sense) is short for "has a goal which would be fulfilled
> if I were to have (in whatever the appropriate sense is) x" and so every
> green thing fits and none is special ("if my goal were fulfilled, I would have").
I'm not sure I like that "goal driven" analysis of seek.
Especially, mixing up quantifiers and goal constraints is rather confusing.
What your "Ax Greenx I seek x" is _supposed_ to mean, I think, is the following.
There exists a goal G1 which I have in mind, such that for all green things
it is true that if I have such a green object, the goal G1 is fulfilled.
I very much prefer the analysis I described in my last mail,
because if you try to apply quantifiers here, you have to be explicit about
the existential goal quantification.
Else you could end up searching for _all_ green things:
forall x. there exists g. have(I, x) => satisfied(g)
(I just invented the "satisfied" for the lack of a better notation)
Again, I prefer to say that {mi sisku da poi crino} adds an
object to the universe of discourse which satisfies {crino} and can map
to a number of physical objects, therefore creating the feeling of
a restricted universal quantification.
We do this in NatLangs as well: "I'm looking for a shirt.",
"I'm searching for something green.", "Ich suche eine Kuh.",
"Je cherche une vache.", ...
Just to point this out again: This is an analysis which I proposed in
my last mail and which I never directly read about anywhere. Therefore,
I'm still waiting for criticism and comments.
> This still supposes, of course, that there is something green in the UD,
> so the property sense is still better.
> Of course, spelling out the counterfactual stuff in such a way as to make
> the quantifier scope points clearer would be nice, too,
> but no one seems to like {tu'a}
> and it is a little iffy around the edges anyhow.
I don't really get, what you try to point out here.
v4hn
Attachment:
pgpQT6WxlKbJl.pgp
Description: PGP signature