Quantifiers

[Dan Everett]

So we could call that one the Marilyn Monroe quantifier. 

But I do get your point. 

Dan

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 24, 2011, at 12:03 PM, "A. Katz" <amnfn at well.com> wrote:

> Dan,
> 
> If you've never conceived of any men you have never seen, then by definition you end up with the resttricted set.
> 
> --Aya
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011, Daniel Everett wrote:
> 
>> Imagine two quantifiers. One can be used to mean "all" in the sense of "all men (that anyone could ever imagine)." The other can only be used in the sense of "all (those we recognize in our culture/those in the next village over/etc)."
>> 
>> Call the first one "unrestricted." Call the second one "domain-restricted."
>> 
>> Is any language known that has only the latter? To put this in a different way, would there be any principle barring the existence of only the restricted type (whose domain is a subset of the former's) in the absence of the unrestricted?
>> 
>> Dan
>> 
>> 
>> **********************
>> Daniel L. Everett
>> 
>> http://daneverettbooks.com
>> 
>> 
>