17
edits
m (→TODO proposal details: Specify the syntax of the completeness phrase) |
(→TODO proposal details: Admit that completenes could be lexical) |
||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
The complementizer {{t|ma}} will gain semantics, specifically <math>\lambda \text{P}. ?!P</math>. | The complementizer {{t|ma}} will gain semantics, specifically <math>\lambda \text{P}. ?!P</math>. | ||
We will need to add a new phrase to the grammar, the completeness phrase, which will have a <math>\Sigma</math> | We will need to add a new phrase to the grammar, the completeness phrase, which will have a completeness operator as its head, and we'll have to pick exactly one of the following as its complement: a <math>\Sigma\text{P}</math>, a <math>\text{CP}</math>, or a <math>\text{DP}</math>. Completeness operators map a proposition to the (not necessarily downwards closed! thus, not necessarily a proposition) set of suitable answers to it in some world (each of which is a truth-conditional proposition). TODO describe the completeness operators. However, it will usually have a null head. Alternatively, we could have completeness be lexical for clause-embedding words, which would avoid building a concept of a "suitable answer" into the semantics (as long as we don't attempt lexicosemantics on predicates). | ||
We'll probably want prefixes that apply to quantifiers and apply one of the following to the result of applying the quantifier (in other words, applying them outside the quantifier): <math>!</math>, <math>;</math>, <math>?</math>, <math>?!</math>. | We'll probably want prefixes that apply to quantifiers and apply one of the following to the result of applying the quantifier (in other words, applying them outside the quantifier): <math>!</math>, <math>;</math>, <math>?</math>, <math>?!</math>. |
edits