Re: Reply to Pat Hayes & Chris Menzel

• Mail folder: Interlingua Mail
• Next message: sowa@watson.ibm.com: "Reply to Pat Hayes & Chris Menzel"
• Previous message: Pat Hayes: "Re: Sets, plurals, and mereology"
• Reply: sowa@watson.ibm.com: "Reply to Pat Hayes & Chris Menzel"

Date: Wed, 13 May 92 22:03:55 -0400
From: schubert@cs.rochester.edu
Message-id: <9205140203.AA19989@ash.cs.rochester.edu>
To: CG@CS.UMN.EDU, INTERLINGUA@ISI.EDU, sowa@watson.ibm.com
Subject: Re:  Reply to Pat Hayes & Chris Menzel
Cc: FRANCONI@IRST.IT

I just want to point out that the issue of set theory versus
mereology in NL semantics is far from settled. See for example
Fred Landman's two papers on "groups" in Linguistics and Philosophy 12,
1989, where he makes a case for sets, claiming to resolve some
difficulties with Link's approach therewith.

Len