We assume that every determiner has its own equivalence , which resolves it as a quantifier : sometimes this can be quite a complicated matter , as with any ( Alshawi 1990 ) , which will resolve in different ways depending on its linguistic context , but here we avoid this complexity ' 6 Separate equivalences might also make it easier to encode determiner-specific preferences , such as that of each for wide scope .
resolving quasi logical forms
Hiyan Alshawi
ex istsl ( e. pos ( pres ( u se ( e , eve ry ( m a na ger ) , a c. , ââ ( com put er ) ) ) ) We assume that every determiner has its own equivalence , which resolves it as a quantifier : sometimes this can be quite a complicated matter , as with any ( Alshawi 1990 ) , which will resolve in different ways depending on its linguistic context , but here we avoid this complexity ' 6 Separate equivalences might also make it easier to encode determiner-specific preferences , such as that of each for wide scope . A referee points out that the lack of any explicit ordering of application of equivalences makes one natural way of doing this unavailable .
We assume that every determiner has its own equivalence , which resolves it as a quantifier : sometimes this can be quite a complicated matter , as with any ( @@CITATION ) , which will resolve in different ways depending on its linguistic context , but here we avoid this complexity ' 6 Separate equivalences might also make it easier to encode determiner-specific preferences , such as that of each for wide scope .