Re: fuzzy bears

[Colin Fine <colin@KINDNESS.DEMON.CO.UK>]

vecu'u le notci po'u <886006354.10311.0@listserv.cuny.edu> la Rick
Nylander <rnylander@DTSI.COM> cu cusku di'e
...
>
>Actually my question was simpler, and different, than that.  I was just
>asking if _outer_ quantifiers get absorbed.  Sorry to waste your time,
>as it only just occurred to me to run it through the parser to see if
>{ci lo cribe ku goi ko'a} makes ko'a refer to 3 bears, or just bears.
>Answer: ko'a refers to 3 bears.  (I assume the  parser is considered
>accurate in things like binding of such expressions.)

No, it is not. I have several times advanced arguments on based on how
the parser (and indeed the syntax definition) groups structures, and
been roundly told that such grouping does not necessarily imply that the
semantics follows the same grouping.

This obviously makes sense in cases where a grouping is imposed for
reasons of practicality (eg recursive lists end up onion-shaped), but
I've been unsatisfied with the extension of the argument to cases such
as yours. But that seems to be how things are at present.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|     Colin Fine    66 High Ash, Shipley, W Yorks. BD18 1NE, UK       |
|  Tel: 01274 592696/0976 635354  e-mail:  colin@kindness.demon.co.uk |
|        "Don't just do something! Stand there!"                      |
|              - from 'Behold the Spirit' (workshop)                  |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------