On 7 September 2015 at 20:23, Logan Kearsley <[log in to unmask]> wrote: [...] > It should also be possible to represent quantifiers in this framework, > as totally undistinguished words at the syntactic level which merely > happen to have another different internal structure in their lexical > semantics. This would allow getting rid of some of the built-in > existential quantifiers, but will first require removing a few layers > of abstraction from my current semantic notation in order to uncover > the set-theoretic mechanics of generalized quantifiers. And today, I figured out how to encode arbitrary quantifiers into the monocategorial language. I've started putting this stuff up on my not-often-used blog so as to potentially interest a wider audience, and the description of monocategorial quantifiers is at http://gliese1337.blogspot.com/2015/09/generalized-quantifiers-for.html It turns out that making use of the standard generalized quantifier framework, in which the denotation of a DP or NP is given by a set-of-sets of possible referents, just doesn't work with a completely flat syntax tree where the quantifiers can come at the beginning, middle, or end of a phrase and don't show any kind of embedding. But all of the essential pieces can still get stuck in there, although in slightly odd ways. And this was good practice for figuring out how generalized quantifiers *will* work in the semantics for WSL. -l.