It appears that I've been too pessimistic claiming that I can't assemble the meaning of 'John has two sisters' from the word meanings. Blackburn&Bos have taught me:
John: λv (v JOHN)
has: λsubj λobj (subj (λs (obj s id)))
two: λn λy λv (v (∃S (|S|=2 & ∀x∊S (n x y))))
sisters: λx λy SISTER(x,y)
Let's evaluate:
(two sisters) = λy λv (v (∃S (|S|=2 & ∀x∊S SISTER(x,y))))
(has John) = λobj (obj JOHN id)
((has John) (two sisters)):
∃S (|S|=2 & ∀x∊S SISTER(x,JOHN))
Note that this semantics also doesn't assume that John has only 2 sisters, so it really looks like an appropriate one.
So, the applicative text structure is restored in its rights. Although I don't much like this kind of solution, because the semantics of 'has' and 'two' are too dependent of the fact that SISTER predicate takes 2 arguments. I'd have to change them both to express 'John has two dogs', thus making 'two' (and every other numeric quantifier) ambiguous in semantics. But it's still better than nothing.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment