[YG Conlang Archives] > [engelang group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 2:16 AM, Mike S. <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@hidden.email> > wrote: >> If l- was the epsilon thingy, quantifiers would then be defined as: >> >> sa sma mlta = la mlta mlta >> ra sma mlta = la na mlta mlta >> >> (The latter could be read as something like "that which is the closest >> thing we have to being a non-cat is a cat", which means everything is >> a cat.) > > It hadn't dawned on me that such a sentence might surface from formalizing > "l-" as the epsilon operator, but I think I could tolerate anything more > than having no formalization at all. A version of that sentence that we > might more realistically encounter might be: > > ra sma sma = la na sma sma. > > What would your opinion of the truth value(s) of those sentences have > been, before and after reading about epsilon calculus? "ra sma sma" is obviously true. As for "la na sma sma", since "l" presupposes a (single) referent for "la Xa", and "sma" is true of anything, it has to be true as well. This would seem to challenge the veridicality of l-, at least when used with empty restrictions, which is fine with me. co ma'a xrxe