[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> I don't have a solution, but any solution must reflect that fact,
> and also the fact that I can say:
>
> Each of my books will be about the same battle.
> Each of my books will be about a different battle.
>
> (without knowing which battles). So I conclude that
>
> Each of my books will be about a battle.
>
> is as ambiguous as a nonintensional example like "Each boy will
> kiss a girl".
Why can't the battle-books be handled by quantifier scope, just as
the girl-kissing boys are?
roda poi mibycukta de poi -battle zo'u da -about de
de poi -battle roda poi mibycukta zo'u da -about de
> If we didn't bother about the intensional/extensional
> distinction on selbri, then we can simplify to:
>
> -fears LEdu'u ro me LA superman -is-to-be-feared
>
> -- -fears is a kind of 'fearful believing', a believing that
> causes the believer to feel afraid.
It seems to me, though, that this reduction of fearing to believing
violates the psychological facts. When I stand atop a high building
and fear falling, I have no *beliefs* that are relevant -- in fact, my
belief is that I'm perfectly safe, but I experience fear of heights anyway.
Similarly, I have no trouble saying that a mouse fears a cat, but
I have trouble attributing beliefs to the mouse.
--
My confusion is rapidly waxing John Cowan
For XML Schema's too taxing: jcowan@hidden.email
I'd use DTDs http://www.reutershealth.com
If they had local trees -- http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
I think I best switch to RELAX NG.