The below CFJ is 3826. I assign it to R. Lee.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3826
=============================== CFJ 3826 ===============================
A zombie auction is ongoing.
==========================================================================
Caller: Aris
Barred: G.
Judge: R. Lee
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Aris: 02 Apr 2020 20:53:39
Assigned to R. Lee: [now]
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 1:52 PM Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 13:24, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On 4/1/2020 9:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >
> > > On 4/1/2020 2:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I bid 347 coins in the current zombie auction.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I withdraw my bid. I bid 83 coins.
> > >
> >
> > Ugh, actually I'd forgotten how broken auctions are when this happens.
> >
> > I terminate this auction.
> >
>
> Is this effective? It's not clear to me that "cannot transfer any item"
> in R2552 means "any item cannot be transferred" or "all items cannot be
> transferred".
>
> -Alexis
Gratuitous Discussion (G., Falsifian, Alexis):
On 4/2/2020 6:45 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On 4/2/2020 5:44 PM, James Cook wrote:
>> On 4/2/2020 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>>
>>> The full phrase in question is "cannot transfer any item included in a
>>> lot" which reads (to me) to say "if there exists a lot for which any
>>> item in it can't be transferred, the termination conditions are
>>> triggered."
>>>
>>> Alexis's quoted arguments include the "any item" but leave out the "a
>>> lot", which changes the meaning. If it read "included in the lots"
>>> rather than "included in a lot" I agree that it would favor the "all
>>> items" interpretation.
>>
>>
>> I don't think I understand your reasoning. To me, the "...included in
>> a lot in that Auction" is clarifying which set of items the rule is
>> referring to, i.e. the set of all items in all lots in the auction. I
>> don't see how it resolves the ambiguity of the word "any".
>>
>> I think disambiguating the meaning of "any" often involves common
>> sense. I'm not sure whether that's what needs to happen here.
>
>
> Hmm, but "I can't understand any question" definitely means that none of
> them can be understood. While your second example seems, I agree, to be
> interpretable by common sense, that's not my first scan of it; my first
> scan is pretty strongly that it only applies when the speaker cannot
> understand a single one.
>
> The fact that I almost wrote "when the speaker cannot understand any
> question" implies pretty strongly to me that "any" after a negated verb
> means "none of them". As contrasted to "If any question cannot be
> understood", where "any" comes before the negation. (cf the relationship
> between quantification and negation).
==========================================================================
