WikiDiscuss

pc:
> A> Well, I am being dense here, but this looks like the first case ("I is an
> individual")If there are n+a zillion things among I, then there will be n
> things among I and an individual among I but not among those those n things,
> indeed, a zillion such. The formula works for "at least n+1" but that is not
> what was sought.

You're right, you do need the "all" there.

> C> One of the points here was to get rid of all these "all"s.

I don't think we can get rid of them. There are two "all"s that
differ significantly (each of them can have an existential and
a non-existential variant, but that is generally irrelevant).

The two different "all"s are the one used in "all students
surround the building" and the one used in "all companies that
compete share common interests". "Any" can substitute for it
in this second case "any companies that compete share common
interests".

But I don't see how the point can be to get rid of them. Both
have clear and distinct uses.

> All this
> going around has helped me sort through a mess of stuff (making public
> mistakes along the way), but this last bit puts the finishing touches on one
> more try: QX:FxGX depends upon the notion of *the* Fs or rather the F's,
> where F' is the distributive correlate of F, "is involved in F".

I'm not sure why you need F'. Anyway, "the Fs" are needed for proportional
quantifiers. Non-proportional ones are meaningful even when "the Fs" is
not well defined.

> Then, if a are the F's iff ~EI:I are F ~I among a & ~EJ: J among a & J
> individual ~K:K are F J among K.

What's the second part for? What's the quantifier that binds K? I would
have thought that a are the Fs iff ~EI:I are F ~I among a. Is that not
enough?

> And some existence things I need to sneak
> in there somehow — or just move over to normal universals. Then the
> quantified sentence above is just EI: I are the F & G)'sEJ: J are the F's
> I is Q of J. Some fuzzy stuff here still, so plese knock this doen so it
> comes into focus.

Why not simply [EI: I are G][EJ: J are the Fs] I are Q of J, which is
what McKay gives for proportional quantifiers? I think it amounts to the
same thing when "the F&Gs" is well defined.

Either way, it won't work for {no}, for {su'eci}, or for A (the dual of E).
But as McKay shows these are definable in terms of the others.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush