Hmm. It seems that, in my office, I still have a folder of homeworks that I could return. I thought I had everything with me at the final today, but it appears that I mostly just had the ones that I graded myself, not the ones the grader saw. So if you’re mystified by why …
I’ve gotten a couple of questions on question #7 of the practice final. What it asks you to do is translate the following into English: λp [ ∃x [ p = λw [ person(x) ∧ poisoned-the-vodka(x, w) ]]] There is a sense in which this question isn’t really “fair” in that we’ve never really talked …
I think at this point I have graded everything I had left and gotten the scores I have into the Courseinfo site. So, if you check it and still see something missing that you expected to have a score for (remember, hw1-9 are the homeworks, xc-bucld and xc-vpe are the extra credits), please let me …
It took a long time to put together (you all had to work out just one of the six possibilities—I got to do all six!), but the key for homework #9 is now posted online. Update: If you have trouble viewing the one linked above, you can try this one (made in a slightly different …
The remaining keys (including the midterm key, which I actually wanted to make a couple of notes on) should be all online by about mid-day tomorrow. (Not quite as soon as I thought in class, but check back late tonight for some, and tomorrow for any that remain).
I’ll bring this with me on Tuesday, but if you want to get an advance look at it, I have posted the extra credit problem online. It is a short exploration of the phenomenon of VP ellipsis, in the context of sentences like Bond toasted his bagel because Loren did and Loren likes every book …
Something went amiss with Question 4, part C. This question asks you to transform the structure given in the problem by using the Quantifier Raising rule. It doesn’t say you need to do Tense raising (and the Tense raising rule is not provided), so the structure you wind up still won’t quite be interpretable (contrary …
This is probably relatively clear, but due to a word processing error, Question 6 on the practice final makes reference to “the sentence in (Error! Reference not found.)” being ambiguous. What it is talking about is “the sentence in (8)”.
The reason I suggested that for Part 2 of Homework 8 you consider a sentence like John did not find Mary instead of the actual sentence (John did not like Mary) is that the intuitions are quite a bit clearer, and make the point a bit more forcefully. This point was made even more clearly …
Continue reading ‘HW8: John didn’t like Mary, but he does now.’ »
In this most recent foray into formal semantics, I started doing something on the handout that I had not been doing before, which is using these “fat brackets.” “What are they?”, you may be asking yourself. Basically, in places where I “ought to” have written fat brackets, in the earlier handouts in the semester I’d …