[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
John: > 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 Unless I am missing something, this is just a recapitulation of the "I need a doctor" discussion. Consider: This is a scheme for turning lead into gold. This is a knife for cutting the foreskins off snails. This is a spoon for ladling out any leftovers. None of these entail that there is an event of lead turning into gold, that there is a snail's foreskin, or that there are any leftovers. --And.