tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post115463267437950964..comments2023-11-02T07:50:38.614-05:00Comments on Lemmings: Modality and Quantifier Domain RestrictionBrit Brogaardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17944929071368873218noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post-1154787264158529682006-08-05T09:14:00.000-05:002006-08-05T09:14:00.000-05:00But that may not a problem, I think, for different...But that may not a problem, I think, for different predicates may trigger different readings. But even 'every one of them fit in the van', it seems, fails to have the collective reading, as you pointed out. However, I am wondering about 'everyone of them fit in the van'. Do you get a collective reading if 'everyone' is stressed?Brit Brogaardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17944929071368873218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post-1154704245813463322006-08-04T10:10:00.000-05:002006-08-04T10:10:00.000-05:00Maybe I'm reading (2') the wrong way. There is cer...Maybe I'm reading (2') the wrong way. There is certainly a distributive and non-distributive sense of 'everyone'.<BR/>It is true that everyone can cross the bridge in one sense (one at a time) and false in another (all at once). I was reading (2') in the first way. But I confess I don't have much to go on except an "ear test". The answer,<BR/>(2') Every one of them did,<BR/>doesn't sound to me like 'every one of them did, together'. But that's not much of an argument.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post-1154658993434436872006-08-03T21:36:00.000-05:002006-08-03T21:36:00.000-05:00I should add: so it would seem that 'everyone fit ...I should add: so it would seem that 'everyone fit in the van' resists the sort of treatment suggested by Soames, because it doesn't mean the same as 'every one of them fit in the van' (asserted during a conversation about Amy, Carl, ...).Brit Brogaardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17944929071368873218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post-1154658062824606522006-08-03T21:21:00.000-05:002006-08-03T21:21:00.000-05:00Hi Mike. I have to think about this one. It seem...Hi Mike. I have to think about this one. It seems right that 'everyone' can have a non-distributive interpretation. That ought to affect truth-conditions, or at least it ought to affect the truth-conditions for assertoric content (if you follow Soames in drawing a distinction between assertoric content and semantic content). Interesting.Brit Brogaardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17944929071368873218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31003419.post-1154655028184334302006-08-03T20:30:00.000-05:002006-08-03T20:30:00.000-05:00Brit, I wonder about the truth conditions specifyi...Brit, I wonder about the truth conditions specifying that (1) is true iff. (2).<BR/>(1) Everyone got an A [answering a question about Amy, Bob, Carl, ...]<BR/>(2) Every one of them got an A<BR/><BR/>Compare, for instance, the question,"did everyone fit in the van?"<BR/>(1') Not everyone fit in the van.<BR/>But,<BR/>(2') Every one of them did.<BR/><BR/>That trades on a distributive and non-distributive use of 'everyone' I guess, but that seems to be the difference between (1) and (2). Similarly for "how did everyone do?"<BR/><BR/>(1'') Everyone did less good than they could have.<BR/>But<BR/>(2'') Every one of them did the best that she could do.<BR/><BR/>This is the description, right, of the standard prisoner's dilemma.<BR/><BR/>Here's a more unsual story. There are situations in which it is obligatory that someone (or other) does X, but not obligatory that any particular person does X. Hintikka nicely describes these in a neglected paper 'Quantifiers in Deontic logic'(AFF). So the question: how did Amy, Bob and Carl do?<BR/>(1*) They (everyone) failed to fulfill an obligation to do X.<BR/>But it is not true that,<BR/>(2*) Every one of them (Amy, Bob and Carl) failed to fulfill an obligation to do X.<BR/><BR/>Amy had no obligation to do X and Bob had no obligation to do X and Carl had no such obligation. But rather it was obligatory that someone or other do X, and no one did. So all failed even if no one individual did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com