17
edits
User:Magnap/Inquisitive Semantics Proposal: Difference between revisions
User:Magnap/Inquisitive Semantics Proposal (view source)
Revision as of 18:14, 23 September 2024
, 23 SeptemberRestructure a little
m (→Background: quick fix: s/neq/neg/) |
m (Restructure a little) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
<math>!\exists x. \text{P}\left(x\right)</math> is only the assertion of existence. | <math>!\exists x. \text{P}\left(x\right)</math> is only the assertion of existence. | ||
==TODO proposal | ==TODO proposal aims/goals== | ||
==TODO proposal details== | |||
Lift Toaq's current first-order truth-conditional semantics into first-order inquisitive semantics. | Lift Toaq's current first-order truth-conditional semantics into first-order inquisitive semantics. | ||
TODO Show how <math>?</math> and <math>!</math> can be used to build a good semantics for questions, such as with <math>\lambda \text{P}. ?\exists x. \text{P}\left(x\right)</math> and <math>\lambda \text{P}. \forall x. ?\text{P}\left(x\right)</math> {{t|hí}} variants for exhaustivity. | |||
Show how <math>?</math> and <math>!</math> can be used to build a good semantics for questions, such as with <math>\lambda \text{P}. ?\exists x. \text{P}\left(x\right)</math> and <math>\lambda \text{P}. \forall x. ?\text{P}\left(x\right)</math> {{t|hí}} variants for exhaustivity. | |||
Do we end up needing the completeness operators? For embedded clauses only or also main clauses? | Do we end up needing the completeness operators? For embedded clauses only or also main clauses? | ||