17
edits
User:Magnap/Inquisitive Semantics Proposal: Difference between revisions
User:Magnap/Inquisitive Semantics Proposal (view source)
Revision as of 20:24, 23 September 2024
, 23 September→TODO proposal details
(Elucidate proposal aims) |
|||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
==TODO proposal details== | ==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. This (I predict) will be doable with a minimum of hassle. | ||
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. | 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. | ||
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? | ||