[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit:
> But in brief, the "FOR" creates
> a logical abstraction such that the quantifier on the x2 is
> *within* the abstraction. (For example, "This is a knife for
> cutting a coconut" should not entail "There is a coconut that
> this a knife for cutting".)
I'm not sure I believe this. Let's talk about breadknives rather
than mythical coconut knives (you need something more like an ax than
a knife!), and let's look at the contingent falsity of the negated
version of the implicature rather than the necessary truth of a positive
implicature. I take it that this procedure is licit; if not, let's
discuss it.
I then rewrite your claim as saying: "This is a knife for cutting bread"
is consistent with the falsity of "There is some bread that this is a
knife for cutting". Now I admit that "There is some bread that this
knife cuts" might be false, but if there is no bread whatsoever that
this knife is suited to cut, then I deny that it is a breadknife. So as
long as the "for" appears in both the original and the rewritten forms,
I conclude there is no scoping problem.
--
XQuery Blueberry DOM John Cowan
Entity parser dot-com jcowan@hidden.email
Abstract schemata http://www.reutershealth.com
XPointer errata http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Infoset Unicode BOM --Richard Tobin