[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [jboske] McCawley on existential import



In a message dated 10/4/2002 9:24:45 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@hidden.email writes:

<<
It seems to me -- & I wonder whether you agree with this -- that
the issue of whether (1) and (2) entail (3) depends on whether
or not the quantification is restricted.

1.  ro broda cu brode
2.  ro da poi broda cu brode
3.  da broda

I can sympathize with the view that wants to take 1-2 as involving
restricted quantification, though I'm still not yet in favour of it.

>>
Well, I think both 1 and 2 entail 3 and I think that 1 definitely and 2 probably are cases of restricted quantification.  So I am not sure whether there is a connection or not.  I know that there is a historical connection:  quantification was just restricted quantification until modern times and this was importing (except occasionally when the details of the system got lost).  Quantification is still restricted and importing for the most part, but the class of the restriction (existents) is not mentioned in some cases so that the class of the first portion of a complex predicate is taken (incorrectly) as the class being quantified over and then, with universal quantification as usually done, this class can be empty, making it seem that restricted quantification allows for the empty reference set  -- instead of just a misidentified reference set.  To be sure, non-importing quantification is possible, but virtually useless and certainly not worth screwing up a system for.