On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@hidden.email> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Mike S. <
maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email>
> wrote:
>>
>> I wouldn't make that distinction with the grammar. I would say (when
>> the clarification is needed):
>>
>> la je xnra pvsljrna pxra'ika
>> A/ imaginary(A) & unicorn(A): picture(it, A)
I see two distinct ways this could work. One way is by specifying a model in which, within a given world, imaginary things are included in the extensions of physical things. If so, then "sa je xnra pvsljrna pxra'ika" would be every bit as true as the "la" version. However, if we insist that "pvsljrna" is true only of non-imaginary unicorns, then the other alternative is that the formula "je R1 R2" really means
je lW1 smW1 hW1 R1 lW2 smW2 hW2 R2"
where "hW F" would be an operation indicating the worlds W in which F is true. This would allow "a" to be bound to entities such that "xnra" is true in some worlds and "pvsljrna" is true is others. Did you have either of these alternatives in mind?
>>
>> la je ftca fa spjo'e pxra'ika
>> A/ factual(A) & explosion(A): picture(it, A)
As a side note, I assume that "factual" would deictically mean something like "A is factual in the world in which the discourse takes place." I think we will need this meaning one way or another.
>
> Wow. Why not "le je pxre mlte vska'ake" too?
If you mean "le je pxro'eke mlte vska'ake", yes, I don't have a
problem with it, although you are not saying whether you are seeing it
in the picture or outside of the picture. Otherwise I don't see it as
a similar case.
Hmm, that means "the cat of which something is a picture I see" = "I see the depicted cat". First of all, this seems to straightforwardly entail both "le pxro'eke vska'ake" = "I see the thing in the picture" and "le mlte vska'ake" = "I see the cat", which seems to me to mean that I see an actual cat, not the drawing of one. Moreover I don't think we need that sentence to have both the readings that you want it to have, because we can always say "le li mlti pxreki vska'ake" to get one reading, but making "le je pxro'eke mlte vska'ake" ambiguous seems to make it unduly hard to express unambiguously the simple notion "I see the cat in the picture, only outside the picture."
>I would not have expected
> you to handle this class of non-intersective adjectives with "je".
I'm not thinking of them as non-intersectives.
I have thought about it more since last night. Sorry if my email seemed slightly visceral.
> Is this
> how "fake gun" and "imitation crab meat" also get handled? Surely it's
> closer to logical form to design some two place predicates that work like
> "pxr-".
"Fake gun", "toy gun", "plastic gun", yes, I would say they can be
intersective. "Water gun" would have to be "water-throwing gun" or
something like that.
By a fake gun, I meant for example piece of wood carved in the shape of a gun and painted black or grey that doesn't shoot anything. I agree that water-shooting guns are guns.
For "imitation crab meat" I'd have to see what
you have in mind. It seems it could be "meat of imitation of crab" or
more likely "imitation of meat of crab", but neither of them is
intersective.