Pronouns, Quantifiers, and Relative Clauses (II): Appendix

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (4):777 - 797 (1977)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is occasionally tempting, after climbing a mountain, to use the elevation one has gained to dash up to the top of a connected peak which does not have sufficient interest to induce one to climb so high for its sake alone. It is in this spirit that I turn to Geach's Latin Prose theory of relative clauses. The matter itself is of no very great moment, and some new ground will have to be covered in dealing with Geach's arguments. Nevertheless we shall primarily be applying the theory constructed in the body of the paper, and when one is in a position to expose bad arguments relatively rapidly, it is perhaps a good idea not to leave them unchallenged, especially when they appear to be gaining currency.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-05-29

Downloads
43 (#352,595)

6 months
7 (#350,235)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Restrictions on Quantifier Domains.Kai von Fintel - 1994 - Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
E-type pronouns and donkey anaphora.Irene Heim - 1990 - Linguistics and Philosophy 13 (2):137--77.
Indexical Predicates.Daniel Rothschild & Gabriel Segal - 2009 - Mind and Language 24 (4):467-493.
Names Are Variables.Anders J. Schoubye - 2020 - Philosophical Review 129 (1):53-94.
Towards a common semantics for English count and mass nouns.Brendan S. Gillon - 1992 - Linguistics and Philosophy 15 (6):597 - 639.

View all 34 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Good and Evil.Peter Geach - 1956 - Analysis 17 (2):33 - 42.

Add more references