Quantifier Scope Is All Just Fun and Games! (Luke Smith)

[@miskeeping]

aspect rasio

[@TBeathard]

REAL LIFE IS JUST LIKE STAH WAHS

[@LukeSmithxyz]

*Harry Potter

[@SwattiClears]

"Paper, scissors, rock" why? any explicit reason to not say rock, paper, scissors?

[@desktorp]

You should say, "Paper, Rock, Scissors" to maintain alphabetical order.

[@madisonhanberry6019]

It's great to get a glimpse of your research! Definitely post more. It makes me think I should post some of my research as well.

[@gametree1307]

>paper scissors rock

[@cunjoz]

"You're not autistic." -Luke Smith, 2018 Yeah, Luke... keep telling yourself that...

[@FKLinguista]

How have you not absolutely triggered all of the Chomskyans at U of A, by this point?

[@LukeSmithxyz]

Lol I have.

[@FKLinguista]

Can you also post the handout, so we can follow along?

[@mikuhatsunegoshujin]

Luke Smith *triggered*

[@Aaronstotle]

What's your feeling on Wittgenstein, Ayer, and Kripke?

[@shipiboconibo]

This is good. I really prefer this pre-redpilled Luke.

[@finndriver1063]

I did Jap' 'til GCSE; though I don't get all your nomenclature, linguistics talks/videos are hontouniomoshirokutetanoshiitoomoimasu! Aregatoguzaimasu! I know you don't identify as a programmer, but from your experience of shell scripts, Python and vimrc lang', what are your opinions on English being the defacto standard for programming languages? Do you think there are 'normal' language features that might benefit a programming language design, or perhaps vice-versa? I hear Finnish and Estonian speakers take to programming well, but I couldn't tell you why, me being a brainlet, non-master-race, non-linguist, and all...

[@cannedeals]

You should ask this on his forum. You will likely get more and better responses.

[@desktorp]

Finns have the perfect combination of european and asian qualities to cultivate god tier programming abilities.

[@finndriver1063]

fantombeach Good point, I will do so now

[@finndriver1063]

I have a forum post for this now. I hope it clears up any confusion. forum.lukesmith.xyz/thread-297.html

[@Junebug-ir7cg]

No relation.

[@vpxc]

tfw English is your L1 but you fucking hate it when people intend anything other than surface scope when they use quantified expressions A couple of years ago, I even pretended to be a linguistics student and learned/invented a bunch of terminology so that I could ask a question about it precisely. Watch me ree here: www.reddit.com/r/asklinguistics/comments/3g1tsa/how_do_linguists_decide_what_phrases_are_scopally/ I'm not sure what it is about me, but I find it much easier to speak precisely than to disambiguate during interpretation. This is general, but with respect to the examples you've discussed in this video: If I ever said 'every arrow hit a target', I would _always_ mean to cover a case where some arrows might have all hit the same target, and if I wanted the other interpretation, I would never utter that phrase. I'd probably say 'each arrow hit a unique target'. Avoiding scopal ambiguity feels pretty trivial to me. What's wrong with me, Dr. Luke? Pathologize my aesthetics and explain my mind away pls PS: Will you post all updates w/r/t this work on the channel, or should I finally start following you elsewhere?