Chris Bates wrote:
> I would think being a lecturer in logic he would appreciate that the
> order of the "for alls" and "there exists" matters a lot in the meaning.
> The first is:
>
> everyone (for all X) loves someone (there exists a Y such that
> loves(X,Y)).
>
> The second is:
>
> someone (there exists some X) is loved by everyone (such that for all Y
> loves(X,Y)).
>
> I would say "someone" and "everyone" are still subjects and objects, but
> with words like "Someone" or "Everyone" which qualify it is very
> difficult to reorder them in any way without altering the meaning.
>
Just adding something... I'd point out that your lecturer's problem
isn't with the subject/object system but with the passivization of
sentences like these. It isn't clear that showing that you can't easily
make them into passive sentences (and perhaps that the process of
passivization is flawed from a logical point of view) without altering
the meaning proves that the notions of subject and object are
incorrect... another thing he should understand if he teachers logic.
You need to clearly spell out your proofs.
*NOTE: MADE A MISTAKE AND WROTE AN X WHEN I SHOULD HAVE WROTE A Y BEFORE