User:Magnap/Inquisitive Semantics Proposal: Difference between revisions

User:Magnap/Inquisitive Semantics Proposal (view source)

807 bytes removed , 26 September

→‎TODO proposal details: Split completeness out into its own proposal

17

edits

@@ Line 73: / Line 73: @@
 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 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>.