rhenderson

@bkeej
193 Followers
356 Following
16 Posts
associate professor at the University of Arizona
 __he/him__language, logic, and machines__co-founder of Maya Health Alliance | Wuqu' Kawoq http://wuqukawoq.org
Show threadrhendersonFeb 4, 2023
@standefer nice attachment ambiguity! too bad she's the one that moved—so jealous
Show threadrhendersonJan 22, 2023
@BayesForDays extremely good ride
Show threadrhendersonNov 28, 2022
@cdicanio can those same question particles also go on sentences of declarative form? There might not otherwise be a distinction (besides the question particle, which makes it hard).
Show threadrhendersonNov 28, 2022

@cdicanio So, it is probably not evidential. Also, it probably doesn't do exactly what a standard "question particle" does.

It would have to be an expression that can be appended to declaratives, but also (must?) be appended to all canonical questions.

The kind of meaning people have proposed for L* H-H% is, in fact, quite weird, which is why I'm interested in whether we can find particles that do the same. If not, we would have real puzzle on our hand :D

Show threadrhendersonNov 28, 2022

@cdicanio

Great handout! These are super interesting, and it is impressive given how hard it is to work on expressions like these.

The rise I am thinking out in English is probably uniformly definable. It's the L* H-H% you get on questions and rising declarative.

The main semantic question is whether we can give a uniform semantics to this tune over expressions that have question form and those with declarative form.

Most proposals are that this rise modulate speaker commitments in some way

Show threadrhendersonNov 27, 2022
@cdicanio i know lots of languages have final particles, but I would like one that behaves similarly to rising intonation in english ona variety of semantic tests. So which of the 43 behaves like english rising intonation? Perhaps we should do some work together.
rhendersonNov 22, 2022
free paper idea inspired by sophia malamud talk i saw. in table model theories there's a natural way to define 4 levels of commitment:
—put p (or ~p) in your DC [i.e., fully committed about p]
—put {p, ~p} on T [i.e., fully uncommitted about p]
—put {p, ~p} on T and order PS so CG+p > CG + ~p [i.e., p is likely]
—put {p, ~p} on T and order PS so CG+p < CG + ~p [i.e., p is unlikely]
sophia used real numbered commitments. That's a lot of commitments!! do we need? can we get away with just these 4
Show threadrhendersonApr 12, 2017
@Gargron This is so great! Thank you :D :D
Show threadrhendersonApr 11, 2017
@taavip Thank you! I updated my production.rb to point at an existing cert and now I'm sending mail. I am still getting an ssl error with a RemoteProfileUpdateWorker task, but I have only 1 and this seems less critical at the momement
Show threadrhendersonApr 5, 2017
@Owlbert Yep! It is the best thing. Lots of bars/restaurants here in Tucson serve them and it's now totally become our house bev