Mike S., On 14/09/2012 01:46:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 7:18 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@hidden.email
> <mailto:and.rosta@hidden.email>> wrote: The problem with relying on
> intensional l is that the distinction between (i) there being an
> explosion and me looking at it and sketching it and (ii) me drawing a
> picture of T-Rex fighting unicorn would -- if I understand your idea
> correctly -- be based on "sa fa" for (i) and "la fa" for (ii), but in
> that case we would not be able to apply singularization to (i)
> without simultaneously giving it interpretation (ii). By contrast, I
> propose "sa/la ha" for (i) and "sa/la fa" for (ii).
>
> I'm not wedded to h-, but I do think the (i)--(ii) distinction is
> necessary and also distinct from singularization.
>
>
> Yes, that's quite right. But I was thinking, well, the intension
> *is* already a singularization, so why not use it and kill two birds
> with one stone?
I follow the reasoning.
> If you need to signify extensionality explicitly in those cases
> where it the predicate isn't going to compel it anyway, then maybe
> one should suck it up for once and deal with "s/r" scope issues.
I'm not that keen, for why single out type-(ii) situations for unsingularizability, when every other predicate is singularizable. Still, I see where you're coming from.
Is there any meaningful way in which there could be an extensionalizing operator, that could combine with singularization? (And let l- be the intensional marker as per your suggestion.)
> Otherwise, why not just make everything singularizing, and add
> particles when you want scope to matter? I have thought about that,
> as I still occasionally make s/r scope mistakes. The intensional
> "l-" solution could potentially work with the basic triple binder
> system currently in place.
When you get a chance, can you spell out what you have in mind. I couldn't follow what your idea is here.
--And.