Print

Print


Patrik Austin, On 11/09/2015 14:22:
> I think Alex's Davidsonian paaS passes the test with a minor precision. If I remember correctly, Alex told us one of the a's is a Davidsonian argument, but here it might be that none of them is; or that to make the grammar work properly, it has to be a monocategorial (all-noun) language, so eventually there's no difference between Davidsonian and ordinary arguments, and we'd be looking for a semantic formula instead.
>
> AGENT dance William, AGENT dance Blake
> [apposition]
>
> vs.
>
> AGENT dance William, COMPANION William Blake
> [semantic embedding]
>
> With the grammar xyzS if the semantic formula is "X of Y is Z":
>
> ==> [apposition]: "Agent of dance is William, agent of dance is Blake" (i.e. William Blake, or: Blake, William).
> ==> [semantic embedding]: "Agent of dance is William, companion of William is Blake".
>
> Actually the latter means "William, accompanied by Blake, is dancing."
>
> The sentential structure of paaS has no fixed order. It's just predicates followed by other predicates about a given statement. Due to the unbinding nature one will have to apply indicators for various purposes in complex sentences; this is one example:
>
> AGENT1 dance William, AGENT2 dance Blake
> "William and Blake are dancing."
>
> This says both were dancing, although not necessarily together.

I'll render these into paaS for you. It's not clear that "William Blake" is appositive, so I'll change it to "President Blake". Event args come second.

1. President Blake is dancing.
president 1 2 Blake 1 3 dancer 1 4

2. William, accompanied by Blake, is dancing.
William 1 2 accompanyee 1 3 accompanier 4 3 dancer 1 5

3. William and Blake are dancing.
quantificationless version (for simplicity's sake):
William 1 2 Blake 3 4 memberer 1 5 memberee 6 5 memberer 3 7 memberee 6 7 dancer 6 8

  
--And.