Replied inline... On Friday, 20 January 2017 12:36:26 UTC+1, Inari Listenmaa wrote: > > I may be mistaken, but I've thought that NOT X and (*)-X are still > different, even when the cohort exists: in order to match the contextual > test NOT X, the cohort may not contain any X whatsoever. In order to match > the test (*) - X, the cohort has to have something that is not X, but it > may also have some X. Set operations are at one level, and operators like > NOT and NEGATE only apply once the set operations are normalised wrt the > readings in the cohort: (*)-X in the cohort with [X,Y,Z] matches [Y,Z]. > Because we should still be able to say NOT (*)-X, right? >
Correct. The transformation would be (NOT 1 X) becomes (1C (*) - X), and I think (NOT 1 (*) - X) becomes (1C X) ... I hate binary logic. -- Tino Didriksen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Constraint Grammar" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/constraint-grammar. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
