Mike S. <mcslason@...> wrote:
>And Rosta <a-rosta@...> wrote:
>>This is true only if your loglang grammar defines binding
>>relations over the domain of the entire discourse and not
>>just the current sentence. For English, prior textual
>>context has the same grammatically-invisible status as
>>the rest of the context. (Indeed, for English and probably
>>all natlangs, referential phrases must be unbound.)
>
>That's true. It seems that referring to items established
>in discourse in an unambiguous way presents a number of
>challenges. I was toying with the idea of anaphor as
>article
Heh, I got interrupted and forgot to finish that thought.
I was toying with the idea of expressing most anaphors
simply as article + substantive. This would go with
the idea of starting with simple existential claims and
building on these through discourse.
--- Mike