tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536960326300527592.post3815373766393102333..comments2015-10-26T13:22:58.817+00:00Comments on Sepulkarium: Separate sentence meaningPeter Gromovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05601586254795238403noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536960326300527592.post-58201552746542041642010-01-11T11:06:42.092+00:002010-01-11T11:06:42.092+00:00Not exactly. The background part of the sentence s...Not exactly. The background part of the sentence semantics describes what listener must know before hearing it. And he doesn't know X(Mike), at least within the proposed context. For him to know X(Mike) the background should have been like:<br /><br />- What's with John?<br />- The same that with Mike.<br />- Oh, really? But what's it?<br />- OK, I'll give you a hint. John loves Mary.<br /><br />But still this is artificial. I'd say that here we know that Y(Mike) where Y=λz LOVES(z, someone).Peter Gromovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05601586254795238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536960326300527592.post-40151578616479763732010-01-11T10:55:38.351+00:002010-01-11T10:55:38.351+00:00The semantics for the 5th sentence seems to be wid...The semantics for the 5th sentence seems to be wider then the semantics provided by original sentence. For example, if LOVES(Mike, Mary) is true then we have X(John) is true and X(Mike) is true, but X(Mike) is not the meaning of the sentence.zakharovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16089417429888317869noreply@blogger.com