This paper investigates the semantics of Old English

This paper presents a study of Old English (OE)

To give the reader a first impression, (1)–(4) illustrate some common uses of

(1)

a.

Oðer

other

for

for

ðæm

the

ege,

fear

ðe

that

he

he

ondred

dreaded

ðæt

that

he

he

hit

it

so

medomlice

worthily

don

do

ne

not

meahte,

might

him

it

wiðsoc.

refused

(cocura,CP:7.49.4.272)

ʻThe other, through fear of not doing it

b.

Context: This we can clearly understand, if we think of the two prophets whom God wished to send to teach. The one voluntarily undertook the teaching and the journey.

c.

the degree d such that the first one does d-well

(2)

a.

so

mot

may

se

the

hlaford

Lord

mid

with

þy

the

men

man

feohtan.

fight

(colawaf,LawAf_1:42.5.150)

ʻ

b.

Context:

We also say that a man may fight with his lord, if someone fights this lord;

c.

(i.e. legally, with the king’s permission)

(3)

a.

& he

& he

brytniæ

distribute

so

higum

convent

maest

most

red

advantageous

sie

is

& ðaem

& the

sawlum

souls

soelest.

best

(codocu1,Ch_1188_[HarmD_1]:27.10)

ʻand he is to distribute them

b.

‘~~XP~~ that he distribute them _ ]’:

λP. it is most advantageous to the convent that he distribute them in manner P

(4)

a.

Gif

if

him

them

ðonne

then

God

God

ryhtlice

rightously

& stræclice

& severly

deman

judge

wile,

want

& he

& he

him

them

for

for

his

his

mildheortnesse

mercy

ne

not

arað,

?spare

ðonne

then

beoð

are

hie

they

so

monegum

many

scyldum

sins

scyldige

guilty

so

hie

they

manegra

many

unðeawa

faults

gestiran

correct

meahton

might

mid

with

hiora

their

larum

teaching

&

&

bisenum,

example

gif

if

hi

they

ongemong

among

monnum

men

beon

be

wolden.

wanted

(cocura,CP:5.45.20.257)

ʻBut if God determines to judge them righteously and severely, and does not of his mercy spare them, they are guilty of

b.

‘they are guilty of

It is not obvious what the common semantic denominator is in these data, which do not exhaust the possible uses of

(5)

a.

swa_{def}:

definiteness marking – “the”

b.

swa_{abs}:

marking predicate abstraction – “λαˮ

The paper is structured as follows: In section 2 I present an overview of the data I have collected. In section 3 I turn to the semantic analysis, starting with the compositionally simpler examples. Those turn out to be uses as pronouns, relativizers, subordinating conjunctions and conditional markers. Section 4 analyses compositionally more complex cases, equatives and consecutives. Taken together, the analyses in sections 3 and 4 support the proposal that (5) mnemonically represents. I provide a summary in section 5, which also presents possible extensions to further example types that use

The appendix provides information on the empirical basis of the paper as well as further examples.

This section presents a survey of the kinds of data found in the corpus search. It will become clear that

The first type of use of

(6)

a.

ic

I

ne

not

eom

am

him

him

so

hiwcuð.

familiar

(cocura,CP:10.63.3.395)

ʻI am not familiar enough with him.ʼ (Sweet) ʻ …

b.

Context: … if a criminal comes to one of us, and prays him to lead him to a man in power who is angry with him, and intercede for him? If he is not known to me, or any man of his household, I shall very soon answer him and say: “I cannot undertake such an errand:

c.

the degree d such that I would have to be d-familiar with him

Against the background of the semantic analysis of comparison constructions (c.f. e.g.

(7)

[[swa_{j,<d>}]]^{g}

= g(j_{<d>})

= the degree d such that I would have to be d-familiar with him

‘

(8)

a.

I am not

b.

[[familiar]] = λd.λy.λx.x is d-familiar with y type <d,<e,<e,t>>>

c.

It is not the case that I am familiar with him to degree g(j) (where the context determines that g(j)= the degree d such that I would have to be d-familiar with him).

Pronominal

(9)

a.

Se

who

ðe

that

ænigne

any

ðissa

(of) these

ierminga

wretched

besuicð,

deceives

him

him

wære

were

betere

better

ðæt

that

him

him

wære

were

sumu

some

esulcweorn

millstone

to

to

ðæm

the

suiran

neck

getiged,

tied

&

& so

aworpen

thrown

to

sea’s

sæs

bottom

grunde.

(cocura,CP:2.31.14.140)

‘He who deceives one of these little ones, it were better for him to have a millstone tied to his neck, and

b.

I take these examples to involve properties of events, type <v,t> (see e.g.

(10)

a.

[[swa_{i,<v,t>}]]^{g}

= g(i_{<v,t>})

= with a millstone tied around the neck

‘

We return to the pronoun examples and their analysis in section 3, where—by refining (7) and (10)—a connection will be made to analyses of pronouns as definite descriptions (e.g.

In this subsection we see examples of a common use of

(11)

& bete,

& make amends

as

him ryht

him law

wisige.

orders

(colawine,LawIne:5.16)

‘and make amends,

The subordinate clause in (12) is of a temporal nature rather than a manner clause.

(12)

Ac

but

sona

soon

as

he

he

ðone

the

anwald

rule

onfeng

received

ðæs

the

rices,

kingdom

he astag

he rose

on

in

ofermetto,

pride

(cocura,CP:3.35.15.175)

ʻBut as soon

The relative clause example in (13) is to be considered in connection to the other subordinate clauses in this subsection:

(13)

& suilc

& such

man

man

so

hit

it

awege,

weighs (?)

ðonne

then

se

be

hit

it

on

on

his

his

sawale,

soul

nas

neg

on

on

ðes

that

ðe

that

hit

it

don

done

het.

commanded

(codocu1,Ch_1195_[HarmD_5]:14.79)

ʻand whosoever fails to perform this, be it on his soul, and not on the soul of him who

has commanded it to be done.ʼ (Harmer) ʻsuch a man

These data indicate a different semantic role for

(14)

a.

[[ [swa2 [t_{2} hit awege]] ]] <e,t>

= [λx. x fails to perform this]

ʻ

b.

[[ [swa3 [him riht wisige [~~XP~~ … t_{3} bete]] ]] <<v,t>,t>

= [λP. the law provides that he make amends in manner P]

ʻ

c.

[[sua2 [he t_{2} ðone anwald onfeng ðæs rices]] ]] <i,t>

= [λt. he obtained the rule of the kingdom at t]

ʻ

OE

(15)

Be

by

ðæm

that

wæs

was

suiðe

very

wel

well

gecueden

said

ðæt

that

se

the

efsigenda

cutter

efsode

cut

his

his

heafod,

head

ðæt

that

is

is

ðæt

that

he

he

so

geornfullice

diligently

sie

be

ymb

about

ða

the

giemenne

care

ðissa

the

hwilendlicra

transitory

ðinga

things

so

so

hit

it

niedðearf

needful

sie,

be

ond

and

ðeah

though

so

so

he

he

mæge

may

hie

them

iðelice

easily

butan

without

sare

pain

of

of

aceorfan

cut of

ðæt

that

hie

they

to

too

ungemetlice

immoderately

ne

not

forweaxen;

grow

…

(cocura,CP:18.141.2.957)

ʻAbout which it was well said that the cutter was to cut his hair, in other words, that he is to be

It is also possible, as (4) and (16) show, to form an OE equative with only one occurrence of

(16)

Gief

if

we

we

ðonne

then

habbað

have

so

micle

much

sorge

trouble

&

& so

micle

much

gieman

care

urra

our

niehstena

neighbours

so

ure

our

selfra,

selves

ðonne

then

hæbbe

have

we

we

begen

both

fet

feet

gescode

shod

suiðe

very

untællice;

blamelessly

(cocura,CP:5.45.10.254)

ʻIf we take

For a first idea of the semantics of equatives, a simple example of a PDE degree equative is given in (17), together with its standard semantics (see

(17)

a.

Billy is as tall as Alex.

b.

[[ [_{matrix} Billy is as tall [_{subordinate} as Alex ~~is tall~~]] ]] = 1

iff

iff

the maximal degree of height that Billy reaches

reaches or exceeds the maximal degree of height that Alex reaches

Height(Billy)≥Height(Alex)

‘Billy’s height reaches or exceeds Alex’s height.’

Equatives raise interesting questions about the compositional path that leads to these truth conditions: what provides us with the two degrees that are compared, and where does the comparison operation come from? These questions will be addressed for OE equatives in particular in section 4. To anticipate, both pronoun uses and abstractor uses of

Before we move on, we note that OE

(18)

a.

Forðæm

because

so

so

unwærlicu

unguarded

&

&

giemeleaslicu

careless

spræc

speech

menn

men

dweleð,

lead astray

so

eac

also

sio

the

ungemetgode

excessive

suige

silence

ðæs

the

lareowes

teacher

on

in

gedwolan

error

gebringð

brings

ða

them

ðe

that

he

he

læran

teach

meahte,

may

gif

if

he

he

sprecende

speaking

beon

be

wolde.

wanted

(cocura,CP:15.89.7.571)

ʻFor

b.

so

se

the

æppel

apple

bið

is

betogen

covered

mid

with

anfealdre

onefold

rinde,

rind

&

&

ðeah

though

monig

many

corn

seed

oninnan

within

him

it

hæfð,

has

so

sio

the

halige

holy

cirice

church

unrim

innumerable

folces

people

befehð

comprehends

mid

with

anfealde

onefold

geleafan,

belief

(cocura,CP:15.95.5.619)

‘

As a first intuition, OE property equatives seem to relate to both the subordinate manner clauses with

There is one more degree construction that can be marked by

(19)

Se

the

ceac

basin

wæs

was

so

micel

big

that

he

it

oferhelede

covered

ða

the

oxan

oxen

ealle,

all

buton

except

ða

the

heafudu

heads

totodon

peeped

ut.

out

(cocura,CP:16.105.4.688)

ʻThe basin was big enough to cover the oxen entirely, except the projecting heads.ʼ

(Sweet) ʻ…

There is a fairly transparent relation to PDE consecutives like (20). A preview to Meier’s semantic analysis is sketched in (21). The intricate composition of consecutive comparisons will be tackled in section 4.

(20)

The basin is so big that it covers the oxen.

(21)

The degree d such that the basin is d-big reaches or exceeds the degree needed in order to cover the oxen.

With consecutives as well we find non-degree counterparts to the degree construction in (19). (22) exemplifies this for OE. The PDE non-degree consecutive in (23) indicates that such examples once more talk about properties of events, i.e. manners (

(22)

&

& so

ðurhfærð

penetrates

his

his

andgit

understanfing

ðæt

the

mod

mind

his

his

hieremonna

subjects

that

him

him

bið

is

eall

all

cuð

known

ðæt

that

hie

they

unaliefedes

illicit

ðenceað.

think

(cocura,CP:21.155.8.1057)

ʻand thus his understanding penetrates the heart of his subjects,

(23)

a.

Lyn’s understanding penetrated Edmund’s heart so that his thoughts were known to her.

b.

The way in which Lyn’s understanding penetrated Edmund’s heart was the way needed in order to know his thoughts.

We return to these data in section 4 as well.

In some rare but interesting examples,

(24)

Gif

if

hwa

who

stalie,

stells

so

his

his

wif

wife

nyte

not.know

& his bearn,

& his children

geselle

give

LX

60

scillinga

shillings

to

to

wite.

punishment

(colawine,LawIne:7.26)

‘If someone steals,

Section 3 explores how such occurrences can be reconciled with the established semantic roles of

Some further types of examples show up in the corpus search that will not be subject to a detailed analysis in this paper. The first of these is Free Choice relative clauses (see e.g.

(25)

ond

and

so

hwelc

which

so

wille

wants

betweoxn

between

eow

you

mæst

most

beon,

be

sie

be

se

that

eower

your

ðeow.

slave

(cocura,CP:17.121.4.810)

ʻand whoever whishes to be greatest among you, shall be your slave.ʼ (Sweet)

There are data in which

(26)

& geðence

& think

he simle

he always

sie

be

so

æðele

noble

so

unæðele

common

suæðer

whichever

he

he

sie

be

ða

the

æðelu

nobility

ðære

the

æfterran

afterwards

acennesse,

nativity

ðæt

that

is on

is in

ðæm

the

fulluhte,

baptism

(cocura,CP:14.85.14.552)

ʻand whether he be noble or of low birth, let him ever consider the nobility of regeneration, which is in baptism,ʼ (Sweet)

Finally, some comparison constructions are translated as and reminiscent of so-called comparative conditionals (e.g.

(27)

so

micle

much

he

he

mæg

may

ieð

easier

his

his

hieremenn

subjects

geteon

bring

to

to

beteran,

better

&

&

he

he

bið

is

so

micle

much

sel

better

gehiered

heard

so

he

he

ufor

higher

gestent

stands

on

in

his

his

lifes

life’s

geearnungum.

merits

(cocura,CP:14.81.16.532)

‘He can the more easily improve his disciples, and the better he will be heard, the higher he stands in his life’s merits.’ (Sweet)

I will offer an outlook on how these examples relate to the proposals in the main parts of the paper in section 5.2.

The data collected in this section appear quite diverse. (28) summarizes the main uses of

(28)

pronoun, subordinating conjunction, equative marker, consecutive marker, conditional

The diversity in (28) makes it difficult to identify the item’s semantic contribution. It is not obvious, for example, what a common denominator of the conditional, the pronoun and the equative uses could be. At the same time, it is unattractive to assume several unconnected semantic denotations for this lexical item. This is especially unappealing in view of the fact that similar patterns linking some of these uses show up in other languages, e.g. in PDE for

My strategy in the next sections is reductionist. I analyse the composition of OE complex structures like equatives and identify simpler component parts that go into composing the overall truth conditions. The contribution of

Section 2 has taken some first steps towards identifying which component or components

(29)

a.

[[swa_{j,<d>}]]^{g}

= g(j_{<d>})

= the degree d such that I would have to be d-familiar with him

‘

b.

[[swa_{i,<v,t>}]]^{g}

= g(i_{<v,t>})

= with a millstone tied around the neck

‘

(30)

a.

[[swa2 t_{2} hit awege]] <e,t>

= [λx. x fails to perform this]

ʻ

b.

[[ [swa3 [him riht wisige [~~XP~~ … t_{3} bete]] ]] <<v,t>,t>

= [λP. the law provides that he make amends in manner P]

ʻ

Does this address the other example types identified above? That is: can we analyse the remaining interpretations—conditionals, equatives, consecutives—in such a way as to reduce the contribution of

Here is a short preview: First, I adopt an analysis of pronouns as definite descriptions (e.g.

Next, we need to add an understanding of

(5)

a.

b.

swa_{def} :

swa_{abs} :

definiteness marking – “the”

marking predicate abstraction – “λaˮ

It emerges from this preliminary sketch that the data can be divided into compositionally fairly straightforward cases (pronouns, abstractors and conditionals) versus compositionally more complex cases (equatives and consecutives). The first set will be analysed in section 3. On this basis, the second set will receive a compositional analysis in section 4. The data from section 2.6. will be discussed separately in section 5.

This section presents the semantic baseline. I argue that it is possible to reduce all the diverse semantic contexts in which

First, we take a closer look at pronouns. There is a body of literature (see e.g.

(31)

Pronouns revisited:

a.

he_{3} = [_{3,<e,t>}]

b.

[[

= λf:f∈D_{<e,t>} & there is a unique x such that f(x)=1. the unique x such that f(x)=1

c.

[[he_{3}]]^{g}

= [[_{3, <e,t>}]]^{g})

= the unique x such that g(C_{3})(x) =1 if there is such a unique x, undefined otherwise.

A slightly modified version of the semantics of

(32)

a.

[[_{<e,t>} & max(λx.f(x)=1) is defined.max(λx.f(x)=1)

b.

max(P)= the unique z such that P(z)=1 & for all y such that P(y)=1: y≤z

(if there is no such unique z, then max(P) is undefined.)

c.

[[the dogs]]

= max(λx.x are dogs)

= the largest sum of dogs (in the context)

(31ʼ)

c.

[[he_{3}]]^{g}

= [[_{3, <e,t>}]]^{g})

= the maximal x such that g(C_{3})(x) if there is such a maximal x, undefined otherwise.

This analysis of natural language pronouns can be extended to OE degree pronouns straightforwardly, as (33) shows. I assume with e.g. Hohaus et al. (_{<d>}, the denotation domain of degrees. The ontology of type <d> is such that this set is ordered; for example, a height degree of 1.7 m is smaller than a height degree of 1.8 m (see e.g.

(33)

a.

swa_{7} = [_{7,<d,t>}]

b.

[[swa_{7}]]^{g}

= [[_{7,<d,t>}]]^{g})

= max(λd.g(D_{7})(d)=1),

if there is such a maximal d, undefined otherwise.

(34)

a.

The other did not do it

b.

[[well]] = λd.λx.x is d-good type <d,<e,t>>

c.

It is not the case that the other did it well to degree max(λd.g(D_{7})(d)=1)

(where the context determines g(D_{7}) – here:

g(D_{7}) = [λd.the first one does d-well]).

Next we consider manner or property pronouns. The case of properties is ontologically more complicated (see e.g. Umbach & Gust (

(35)

a.

He was thrown

b.

swa_{3} = [_{3,<<v,t>,t>}]

c.

[[swa_{3}]]^{g}

= [[_{3,<<v,t>,t>}]]^{g})

= max(λP_{<v,t>}.g(C_{3})(P) = 1)

if there is such a maximal P, undefined otherwise.

d.

He was thrown to the bottom of the sea in manner max(λP.g(C_{3})(P) = 1)

(where the context determines that

g(C_{3})= λP_{<v,t>}. P= with a millstone around the neck)

The upshot is that _{def}]] = [[the]] = [[

(36)

definiteness marker (refined):

[[swa_{def}]] =

[[

[λf:f∈D_{<x,t>} & there is a maximal a such that f(α)=1.max(λα.f(α)=1)]

(x = <d>, <e,t>, <v,t>)

A first pay-off of the refined pronoun analysis is that it can be extended to conditional

(37)

a.

If John’s wife didn’t know that he stole, he pays 60 shillings.

b.

[[_{subordinate} if [R(@)][John’s wife didn’t know]] [_{matrix} he pays 60s]]

(38)

a.

_{<<s,t>,s>}:

[[if]] = λp_{<s,t>}: there is a maximal w’ such that p(w’).max(λwʼ. p(wʼ))

b.

subordinate clause:

[[if]]([[R(@) & Johnʼs wife didnʼt know]]) =

max(λwʼ. wʼ is maximally similar to @ and unaware(Jʼs wife)(wʼ))

(if defined; undefined if there is no such maximal wʼ)

c.

matrix clause:

λwˮ.∀w[w≤wˮ → pay(60s)(J)(w)]

d.

conditional sentence:

∀w[w≤ max(λwʼ. wʼ is maximally similar to @ and unaware(Jʼs wife)(wʼ)) → pay(60s)(J)(w)]

ʻIn all worlds that are part of the plurality of worlds maximally similar to @ in which Johnʼs wife didnʼt know he stole, John pays 60s.ʼ

This is the analysis I propose to apply to the OE conditional uses of

(24)

Gif

if

hwa

who

stalie,

stells

so

his

his

wif

wife

nyte

not.know

& his bearn,

& his children

geselle

give

LX

60

scillinga

shillings

to

to

wite.

punishment

(colawine,LawIne:7.26)

‘If someone steals,

(39)

a.

[[ swa his_{x} wif nyte & his_{x} bearn ]] (if defined)

= max(λwʼ. wʼ is maximally similar to @ and unaware(xʼs wife)(wʼ) and unaware(xʼs children)(wʼ)) the plurality of worlds maximally similar to @ in which xʼs wife and xʼs children didnʼt know x stole

b.

conditional sentence:

∀w[w≤ max(λwʼ.wʼ is maximally similar to @ and unaware(xʼs wife)(wʼ) and unaware(xʼs children)(wʼ)) → pay(60s)(x)(w)]

ʻIn all worlds that are part of the plurality of worlds maximally similar to @ in which xʼs wife and children didnʼt know x stole, x pays 60s.ʼ

The semantics of

(40)

_{<<s,t>,s>}:

[[swa]] = λp_{<s,t>}: there is a maximal w’ such that p(w’).max(λwʼ.p(wʼ))

(41)

[[swa_{def}]] =

[[

[λf:f∈D_{<x,t>} & there is a maximal a such that f(α)=1.max(λa.f(α)=1)]

(x = <d>, <e,t>, <v,t>, <s>)

This is the first part of the baseline analysis to be proposed. Next we turn to the second part, predicate abstraction.

The second basic semantic function that

(42)

a.

suilc man sue hit awege

b.

[[ [CP sue1 [C’ [IP t_{1} hit awege]]] ]]^{g}

= [λx_{e}.[[ [IP t_{1} hit awege] ]]^{g[x/1]} ]

= [λx_{e}. x fails to perform ‘it’] <e,t>

c.

[[man sue hit awege]]

= [λx. x is a man and x fails to perform ʻitʼ]

I take the uses of

(43)

a.

He made amends

b.

[[ [swa3 [him riht wisige [~~XP~~ … t_{3} bete]] ]] <<v,t>,t>

= [λP. the law provides that he make amends in manner P]

c.

∃P[he made amends in manner P & the law provides that he make amends in manner P]

ʻThere is a way/manner such that he made amends in that way and that way is as the law provides.ʼ

Example (44a) (a simplified version of (12)) requires times instead of events. I take the subordinate clause to be interpreted as shown in (44b), contributing a property of times. The combination with the matrix clause attributes the matrix clause temporal property to the earliest time in the subordinate clause set, (44c) (see e.g.

(44)

a.

b.

[[ [CP swa2 [C’ [IP he t_{2} ðone anwald onfeng ðæs rices]]] ]]

= [λt. he received the rule of the kingdom at t] ʻas/when he received the ruleʼ <i,t>

c.

He became proud at the earliest t* such that [λt. he received the rule at t](t*).

Finally we will see in section 4 that some of the occurrences of

(45)

a.

He is

b.

[[[CP swa4 [C’ [IP it is needful to be t_{4} diligent]]] ]]

= [λd. it is needful to be d-diligent] <d,t>

c.

His degree of diligence is at least as much as the maximal degree d* such that [λd. it is needful to be d-diligent](d*).

These data motivate an analysis of

(46)

swa_{abs}:

trigger of Predicate Abstraction - “λαˮ

(over variables of semantic types <e>, <e,t>, <v,t>, <i>, <d>, resulting in properties of type <e,t>, <<e,t>,t>, <<v,t>,t>, <i,t>, <d,t>)

It is interesting to note that

In this section, I have argued that

(5)

a.

swa_{def} :

definiteness marking – “the”

b.

swa_{abs} :

marking predicate abstraction – “λαˮ

What we have seen in this section is an application of analyses from current semantic theory to the OE data, motivated by OEʼs particular properties. The analyses subsume several apparently diverse uses of

This section extends the analysis of

The occurrences of

(47)

a.

Billy is as tall as Alex.

b.

[[Billy is as tall as Alex]] = 1 iff

Height(B)≥Height(A)

‘B’s height reaches or exceeds A’s height.’

The literature is less unanimous on how to derive these truth conditions, the discussion revealing some crosslinguistic semantic differences between equatives in different languages. I present here the compositional analysis of Penka (

According to Penka (

(48)

a.

[_{matrix} Billy is as_{1} tall]

b.

[[ Billy is as_{1} tall ]]^{g} = 1

iff

iff

iff

[[tall]]([[as_{1}]]^{g})([[Billy]]) =1

[λd.λx.Height(x)≥d](max(g(1)))(B) =1

Height(B)≥max(g(1))

We turn to the subordinate clause next. It has to furnish the degree that the matrix clause equals or exceeds, max(g(1)) in (48). I sketch the composition of the subordinate clause in (49). The structure we interpret is (49a): the comparative ellipsis has been filled in, the movement of

(49)

a.

[ ~~is t~~]]_{2} tall

b.

[[[ ~~is t~~]] ]]_{2} tall^{g}

=

=

=

=

max([[ [as2 Alex ~~is t~~] ]]_{2} tall^{g})

max(λd.[[ Alex ~~is t~~]]_{2} tall^{g[d/2]})

max(λd.Height(A)≥d)

Height(A)

The main clause degree pronoun _{1}

Prepared with this composition of an equative’s interpretation, let’s approach the analysis of OE. To help us on our way towards the analysis of the attested examples, I consider (50), a constructed example built after the template of OE degree equatives, and the OE counterpart of (47). The example contains three occurrences of

(50)

OE degree equative with correlative structure – prototype:

^{i}swa ^{ii}swa tall Alex is, ^{iii}swa tall is Billy.

‘B is as tall as A.’

Our discussion up to this point leads us to the structure sketched in (51). The analysis introduced on the basis of PDE (47) applies straightforwardly to (51). The role of the three occurrences of

(51)

structure of (50) – first version:

[[XP ^{i}swa_{def} [_{subord} ^{ii}swa2 Alex ~~t~~ is]] [_{2} tall_{matrix} Billy ^{iii}swa_{1} tall is]]

Let’s be more explicit about some of the details in (51). The template I have chosen makes (51) an example of a correlative structure, of which OE has many instances. Example (52) shows a correlative with the pronominal ð

(52)

Geðenc

consider

hwelc

which

witu

punishment

us

us then

becomon

befall

for ðisse worulde,

for this world,

then when we it

nohwæðer

neither

ne

neg

selfe

self

ne lufodon

neg loved

ne

neg

eac

also

oðrum monnum

other men

ne

neg

lefdon:

left

(coprefcura,CPLetW+arf:23.10)

ʻConsider what punishment would come upon us on account of this world, if we neither loved it (wisdom) ourselves nor suffered other men to obtain it:ʼ (Sweet)

Correlatives have received considerable attention in the syntactic literature; see Liptak (

(53)

surface syntax: correlative

[CP [XP ^{i}swa [CP_{subordinate} ^{ii}swa2 … [VP A t_{2} tall is]]] [CP_{matrix} [^{iii}swa_{1} tall]7 [C’ is B t_{7}]] ]

(54)

LF structure – 1st step:

[CP [XP ^{i}swa [CP_{subordinate} ^{ii}swa2 … [ VP A t_{2} tall is]]] [CP_{matrix} ^{iii}swa_{1} [3[C’ B t_{3} tall is]] ]

(55)

LF structure – final:

[CP

[XP ^{i}swa [CP_{subordinate} ^{ii}swa2 … [ VP A t_{2} tall is]]]

[CP_{matrix} [^{iii}swa_{1} I_{3} tall is]]] ]

The operator I

(56)

[[I

The crucial steps in the compositional interpretation of (55) are sketched in (57). We derive the desired equative interpretation.

(57)

a.

subordinate CP – ^{ii}swa2 triggers Predicate Abstraction ‘λdʼ:

[[ [CP_{subord} swa2 Alex ~~t~~ is] ]]_{2} tall^{g}

= [λd. A is d-tall]

= [λd.Height(A)≥d]

b.

left dislocated XP – ^{i}swa = _{<<d,t>,d>}:

[[ [XP swa_{def} swa2 Alex ~~t~~ is] ]]_{2} tall^{g}

= [[swa_{def}]](λd.Height(A)≥d)

= max(λd.Height(A)≥d)

= Height(A)

c.

matrix CP – ^{iii}swa_{1} is a pronoun, i.e. ^{iii}swa_{1} = _{<<d,t>,d>} with covert D_{1}:

[[swa_{def} D_{1}]]^{g} = max(g(1))

d.

identification of pronoun reference via I

[[CP_{matrix}]]^{g}

= λdʼ. Height(B)≥ dʼ)

(if max(g(1)) = dʼ, undefined otherwise)

e.

application to [[XP]]^{g} and overall truth conditions:

[[(55)]]^{g} is only defined if max(g(1))=Height(A).

If defined, [[(55)]]^{g} =1 if Height(B)≥max(g(1)).

‘B’s height reaches or exceeds A’s height.’

We are now ready to analyse the actual OE data. Example (15) is repeated from above.

(15)

Be

by

ðæm

that

wæs

was

suiðe

very

wel

well

gecueden

said

ðæt

that

se

the

efsigenda

cutter

efsode

cut

his

his

heafod,

head

ðæt

that

is

is

ðæt

that

he

he

so

geornfullice

diligently

sie

be

ymb

about

ða

the

giemenne

care

ðissa

the

hwilendlicra

transitory

ðinga

things

so

so

hit

it

niedðearf

needful

sie,

be

ond

and

ðeah

though

so

so

he

he

mæge

may

hie

them

iðelice

easily

butan

without

sare

pain

of

of

aceorfan

cut of

ðæt

that

hie

they

to

too

ungemetlice

immoderately

ne

not

forweaxen;

grow

…

(cocura,CP:18.141.2.957)

ʻAbout which it was well said that the cutter was to cut his hair, in other words, that he is to be

I simplify the example to (58a) (I have removed the embedding structure in (15) and the second conjunct, reducing the example to the core sentence with the equative (minus the PP adjunct

(58)

a.

He is

b.

His degree of diligence is at least as much as the maximal degree d*

such that [λd. it is needful to be d-diligent](d*).

c.

ʻit is needful to be d-diligentʼ:

in all relevant worlds w, Diligence_{w}(H)≥d

The maximum diligence reached in all relevant worlds is the maximum in the least diligent world, w1.

(59)

a.

matrix clause:

[[He is swa_{i} diligent]]^{g} = Diligence(H)≥max(g(i))

b.

subordinate CP:

[[ [CP swa4 [C’ [IP it is needful ~~to be t~~]]] ]]_{4}diligent

= [λd. it is needful to be d-diligent] <d,t>

c.

XP introduced by

[[ [XP swa [CP swa4 [C’ [IP it is needful ~~to be t~~]]]] ]]_{4}diligent

= max(λd. it is needful to be d-diligent)

d.

identifying max(g(i)) as the subordinate structure:

Diligence(H)≥max(λd. it is needful to be d-diligent)

For present purposes, the role of the three

(60)

a.

b.

c.

^{i}

^{ii}

^{iii}

swa_{def}

swa_{abs}

swa_{def}

=

- triggers PA

=

(with an

(“λdˮ)

(matrix pronoun –

Examples like (15) and the prototype (51) have two ^{i}swa

(61)

a.

the

Krabbe

crab

frass

ate

einen

a

Gecko.

gecko

‘The crab ate a gecko.’

b.

Ein

a

Gecko

gecko

traf

met

auf

on

eine Krabbe.

a crab

the

hat

has

ihn

it

gefressen.

eaten

‘A gecko happened upon a crab. The crab ate it.’

OE equative examples without the first occurrence of

To round off the discussion, we take a brief look at property equatives. Hohaus & Zimmermann (

(62)

OE property equative – prototype:

^{i}swa ^{ii}swa they learned in books, ^{iii}swa they actually live.

‘They actually live in the way that they were taught to live in books.’

Here, as well, I want to concentrate on the compositional aspects of the analysis rather than peculiarities of properties (of events or individuals). See Hohaus & Zimmermann (

(62’)

[CP

[XP ^{i}swa [CP_{subordinate} ^{ii}swa1 … [ VP they learned in books to t_{1} live]]]

[CP_{matrix} [^{iii}swa_{7} I_{3} live]]] ]

(63)

[[ [XP ^{i}swa [CP_{subordinate} ^{ii}swa1 … [ VP they learned in books to t_{1} live]]] ]]^{g}

= [[_{<v,t>}.they learned in books to live in manner P)

= the way they learned to live in books

(64)

[[ [^{iii}swa_{7} I_{3} live]]] ]]^{g}

= [[I_{7}]]^{g})(λP_{<v,t>}.they actually live in manner P)

= λPʼ_{<v,t>}.they actually live in manner P’ (if [[swa_{7}]]^{g} = P’, undefined otherwise)

(65)

[[62’]]^{g} = 1 iff they actually live in the way that they were taught to live in books.

(undefined if swa_{7} does not refer to the way they learned to live in books)

Other than the change in semantic type from degrees to properties, the example is analysed like the degree equative. The three

We turn to the compositional semantics of OE consecutives in this subsection. The groundbreaking work of Cécile Meier (

We begin with degree consecutives and first introduce their truth conditional meaning. I follow Meier, who motivates an intensional semantics for consecutives (I take some presentational liberties with her theory as well, simplifying the analysis in certain respects). Since no modal element is visible e.g. in example (66a), she postulates a covert one. In (66a) (modelled after (19) above), this is a covert necessity modal—a universal quantifier over possible worlds. The restriction of the universal quantifier contains the main clause interpretation. The truth conditions of the example according to this semantics are given in (66b).

(66)

a.

The basin was so big that it covered the oxen.

b.

Size(the basin)(@)≥

min(λd.∀w[wR@ & Size(the basin)(w)≥d – > the basin covers the oxen in w])

ʻThe size of the basin was at least as large as the minimum size d such that in all relevant worlds in which it is d-large, it covers the oxen.ʼ

(Assuming a circumstantial modal base that is realistic (R(@)(@)), this entails that the basin actually covered the oxen.)

In order to understand these truth conditions, it is helpful to visualize what the size degree is such that if the basin has that size, it covers the oxen. Suppose that the oxen are covered when the basinʼs size is 600l or larger. (67) depicts such an example scenario. The degree property in (66b) is (68) in this scenario.

(67)

(68)

[λd.∀w[wR@ & Size(the basin)(w)≥d -> the basin covers the oxen in w]]

= {600l, 700l, 900l, 1100l}

We are interested in the smallest degree in this set, 600l: (66a) states that the basin reached or exceeded the smallest size required to cover the oxen. Reducing the set in (68) to its smallest member is indicated by ʻminʼ in (66b). Thanks to more recent theoretical developments, it is possible to refine Meierʼs analysis in this respect: I suggest that picking the smallest degree from (68) is a matter of informativity. The smallest degree in (68) is the most informative degree in the set: if all worlds in which the basin reaches a size of 600l are worlds in which the basin covers the oxen, then for degrees dʼ larger than 600l it is also true that all worlds in which the basin reaches size dʼ are worlds in which it covers the oxen. I follow Fox & Hackl (

(69)

max-inf(w)(p<s,<x,t>>) =

ιq.p(w)(q) & ∀qʼ[p(w)(qʼ) & q≠qʼ -> [p(w)(q) => p(w)(qʼ)]]

(undefined if there is no such q)

(70)

a.

Context: Robin drove 80 kmh and no faster.

b.

Ellen knows how fast Robin drove.

=> Ellen knows the maximal speed that Robin drove, 80 kmh.

c.

max-inf(w)([[how fast Robin drove]])

= max-inf(w)(λwʼ.λp.∃d[p(wʼ) & p=λwˮ.Speed(wˮ)(Robin)≥d])

= λwˮ.Speed(wˮ)(Robin)≥80 kmh

d.

If ʻRobin drove 80 kmh fastʼ is a true answer to ʻHow fast did Robin drive?ʼ, then

so is ʻRobin drove 79 kmh fastʼ, Robin drove 78 kmh fastʼ etc. (x=<s,t>)

I further follow Fox & Hackl (

(71)

a.

Context: Robin drove 80 kmh and no faster.

b.

the speed that Robin drove = 80 kmh

c.

max-inf(w)(λwʼ.λx.x is a speed that Robin drove in wʼ) = 80 kmh

d.

If 80 kmh is a speed that Robin drove, then so is 79 kmh, 78 kmh etc. (x=e)

The definition of maximal informativity that we concretely need for consecutives is (72) (with x=d). (See again

(72)

max-inf(w)(D<s,<d,t>>) =

ιd.D(w)(d) & ∀dʼ[D(w)(dʼ) & d≠dʼ -> [D(w)(d) => D(w)(dʼ)]]

This reasoning about the source of ʻminʼ in (66b) leads us to the derivation in (73) for the truth conditions of (66a). The covert modal in the analysis is represented as

(73)

a.

[ [ so

[1[must R [the basin t_{1} big] [_{subord} that it covered the oxen]]]]

[_{matrix} 1[the basin was t_{1} big]]]

b.

[[ [_{matrix} 1[the basin was t_{1} big]] ]] = λd.Size(the basin)(@)≥d

c.

[[ must R(w)]] = λpλq.∀wʼ[wʼRw & p(wʼ) -> q(wʼ)]

d.

[[ [ so [1[must R [the basin t_{1} big] [_{subord} that it covered the oxen]]]] ]]

= max-inf(w)(λwˮ.λd.∀wʼ[wʼRwˮ & Size(the basin≥d) ->cover(the basin)(the oxen)(wʼ)])

= 600l (in the scenario in (67), (68))

e.

If it is the case that if the basin is at least 600l big, it covers the oxen, then it is also the case that if the basin reaches 700l, it covers the oxen (800l etc.).

f.

Size(the basin)(@) ≥ max-inf(w)(λwˮ.λd.∀wʼ[wʼRwˮ & Size(the basin≥d) ->cover(the basin)(the oxen)(wʼ)])

ʻThe basinʼs actual size reaches or exceeds the minimal size such that, if the basin is that big, it covers the oxen.ʼ

The example just analysed is equivalent to the actual OE example in (19), repeated below, and structurally parallel. Therefore the same semantic analysis can be applied to OE degree consecutives, as seen in (74). The interpretation shown in (74) reveals this instance of

(19)

Se

the

ceac

basin

wæs

was

so

micel

much

that

he

it

oferhelede

covered

ða

the

oxan

oxen

ealle,

all

buton

except

ða

the

heafudu

heads

totodon

peeped

ut.

out

(cocura,CP:16.105.4.688)

ʻThe basin was big enough to cover the oxen entirely, except the projecting heads.ʼ

(Sweet) ʻ…

(74)

a.

Se ceac wæs sua micel ðæt he oferhelede ða oxan […].

b.

[ [ swa_{def} [1[must R [se ceac wæs t_{1} micel] [_{subord} ðæt he oferhelede ða oxan]]]]

[_{matrix} 1[se ceac wæs t_{1} micel]]]

c.

Size(the basin)(@) ≥ max-inf(w)(λwˮ.λd.∀wʼ[wʼRwˮ & Size(the basin≥d) ->cover(the basin)(the oxen)(wʼ)])

In somewhat less detail, I apply a Meier-style semantic analysis to OE non-degree consecutives. Remember (22) and (23) from section 2.

(22)

&

& so

ðurhfærð

penetrates

his

his

andgit

understanfing

ðæt

the

mod

mind

his

his

hieremonna

subjects

that

him

him

bið

is

eall

all

cuð

known

ðæt

that

hie

they

unaliefedes

illicit

ðenceað.

think

(cocura,CP:21.155.8.1057)

ʻand thus his understanding penetrates the heart of his subjects,

(23)

a.

Lyn’s understanding penetrated Edmund’s heart so that his thoughts were known to her.

b.

The way in which Lyn’s understanding penetrated Edmund’s heart was the way needed in order to know his thoughts.

For the semantic analysis, I turn straightaway to the constructed prototype example in (75a). Meier (

(75)

a.

Lyn understood Edmund

b.

∃P[Lyn understood Edmund in manner P in w &

∀wʼ[wʼRw & Lyn understood Edmund in manner P in wʼ -> Edmundʼs thoughts were known to Lyn in wʼ]]

c.

Lyn understood Edmund in w in ιP:P= max-inf(w)

(λwˮ.λPʼ.∀wʼ[wʼRwˮ & Lyn understands Edmund in manner Pʼ in wʼ -> Edmundʼs thoughts are known to Lyn in wʼ])

Should this prove a fruitful analysis of such non-degree consecutives, a derivation along the lines of (76) is possible:

(76)

a.

[ [swa_{def}

[1[ must R

[Lyn understands Edmund t_{1}]

[_{subord} that Edmund’s thoughts are known to Lyn]]

[1[_{matrix} Lyn understood Edmund t_{1}]]]

b.

matrix:

λP. Lyn understood Edmund in manner P in @

c.

subord. + modal:

λPʼ.∀wʼ[wʼRwˮ & Lyn understands Ed. in manner Pʼ in wʼ -> Edmundʼs thoughts are known to Lyn in wʼ])

= λP. if Lyn understands Edmund in manner P, then Edmundʼs thoughts are known to Lyn

d.

_{def}

The role of

The preceding subsection has modified the semantic analysis of definiteness marking: from taking it to denote the familiar maximality operator ([[

Beginning with the usefulness of the shift to

(77)

a.

upward monotone predicate:

If the basin is d_{1} large it covers the oxen => if the basin is d_{2} large it covers the oxen. valid if d_{2}>d_{1}

b.

downward monotone predicate:

A is d_{1} tall => A is d_{2} tall. valid if d_{1}>d_{2}

Uniform use of

(78)

max-inf(w)(λw.λd.Height(A)(w)≥d)

= ιdˮ.[λd.Height(A)(w)≥d](dˮ) & ∀dʼ[[λd.Height(A)(w)≥d](dʼ) & dˮ≠dʼ -> [[λd.Height(A)(w)≥d](dˮ) => [λd.Height(A)(w)≥d](dʼ)]]

= Height(A)

See Penka (

Let’s make sure that the original data that were captured with maximality are still covered. This is in particular plural definiteness, illustrated by (79).

(79)

[[the dogs]]

= max(λx.x are dogs)

= the largest sum of dogs (in the context)

(80) shows that

(80)

max-inf(w)(λwʼ.λx.x are dogs_{w’})= ιz.[λwʼ.λx.x are dogs_{w’}](w)(z) & ∀zʼ[[λwʼ.λx.x are dogs_{w’}](w)(z’) & z≠z’ -> [[λwʼ.λx.x are dogs_{w’}](w)(z) => [λwʼ.λx.x are dogs_{w’}](w)(z’)]]

= the largest sum of dogs in w

Finally, we return to a data point from above in which maximal informativity has already come up. Consider once more the exact contribution of the temporal subordinate clause in (81). We analysed

(81)

a.

b.

[[swa2 he received t_{2} the rule]] =

[λt. he received the rule at t]

ʻas/when he received the ruleʼ

<i,t>

c.

He became proud at the earliest t* such that [λt. he received the rule at t](t*).

Since the ultimate result needed for the example overall is (81c), a slightly different perspective becomes possible with

(82)

a.

max-inf([λt. he received the rule at t])

= the earliest t* such that [λt. he received the rule at t](t*).

b.

[swa_{def} [2[he received t_{2} the rule]]

Either analysis is possible;

In this context, a second data point to be reexamined is the type of equative with only one

(83)

Two perspectives are possible when we relate this two-^{i}swa^{ii}swa

(84)

a.

[CP

[CP_{matrix}

[XP max-inf [CP_{subordinate} ^{ii}swa1 … [ VP A t_{1} tall is]]]

[^{iii}swa_{7} IDENT] [3[C’ B t_{3} tall is]]] ]

b.

[CP

[CP_{matrix}

[XP ^{i}swa_{def} [CP_{subordinate} 1 … [ VP A t_{1} tall is]]]

[^{iii}swa_{7} IDENT] [3[C’ B t_{3} tall is]]] ]

I do not know of a reason to prefer one analysis over the other. It is interesting that both definiteness and PA can be marked overtly or covertly, and that _{def} and swa_{abs}.

It makes sense at this point to offer the general definition of definiteness marking in terms of

(85)

a.

[[

b.

the definite determiner (e.g. PDE

c.

_{def}

(86)

[[swa_{def}]] =

[[

max-inf =

λw.λp_{<s,<x,t>>}. ιq.p(w)(q) & ∀qʼ[p(w)(qʼ) & q≠qʼ -> [p(w)(q) => p(w)(qʼ)]]

(x = <d>, <e,t>, <v,t>, <s>)

This section has applied the proposal from section 3 to further data. The final version of (5) from the introduction is spelled out in (87).

(87)

a.

swa_{def}:

definiteness marking

max-inf = λw.λp_{<s,<x,t>>}. ιq.p(w)(q) & ∀qʼ[p(w)(qʼ) & q≠qʼ -> [p(w)(q) => p(w)(qʼ)]] (x = <d>, <e,t>, <v,t>, <s>)

b.

swa_{abs}:

trigger of Predicate Abstraction

- “λαˮ

(over variables of semantic types <e>, <e,t>, <v,t>, <i>, <d>, resulting in properties of type <e,t>, <<e,t>,t>, <<v,t>,t>, <i,t>, <d,t>)

A detailed semantic analysis of equatives and consecutives shows that these data corroborate (87). That is, swa_{def} and swa_{abs} perform the semantic functions argued for in section 3,

The goal of this paper has been to develop a comprehensive picture of the semantic contribution of OE

Definite

Aligning definiteness in the nominal domain with other semantic types invites a shift of perspective. What we tend to think of as a word, e.g.

(88)

a.

she:

[DP [D’ D _{4}]]]

b.

swa_{def} :

[DegP [Deg’ Deg _{7}]]]

How

If these ideas prove useful, they invite an analysis of the morphosyntactic marking of fundamental semantic operations like

This analysis also invites relating an investigation of the fine grained morphosyntax and its mapping to meaning in the domain of pronouns of type <e> to those of other types; e.g. extending the investigation in Patel-Grosz & Grosz (

These issues will be left for future research. In the next subsection, we take a brief look at some interesting instances of

This subsection examines the remaining data types found in the corpus study: Free Choice relative clauses (FCRs), apparent coordinating uses and apparent comparative conditionals. While they all merit a detailed discussion, I will keep the focus on the overall plot of this paper and limit myself to showing that these uses may well be compatible with my approach to OE

Beginning with apparent comparative conditionals, remember (27) from section 2. The example is translated as a comparative

(27)

so

micle

much

he

he

mæg

may

ieð

easier

his

his

hieremenn

subjects

geteon

bring

to

to

beteran,

better

&

&

he

he

bið

is

so

micle

much

sel

better

gehiered

heard

so

he

he

ufor

higher

gestent

stands

on

in

his

his

lifes

life’s

geearnungum.

merits

(cocura,CP:14.81.16.532)

‘He can the more easily improve his disciples, and the better he will be heard, the higher he stands in his life’s merits.’ (Sweet)

I suggest that we actually see an equative with the equative semantics targeting the difference degree argument slot of comparative adjectives (cf.

(89)

‘The higher he stands, the better will he be heard.’

(90)

(ιd: how well he will be heard at end(e) ≥ d+how well he will be heard at begin(e)) ≥

(ιdʼ: how high he stands at end(e)≥dʼ+how high he stands at begin(e))

ʻThe difference between how well he will be heard at the beginning and at the end is at least as much as the difference between how high he stands at the beginning and at the end.ʼ

Turning next to apparent coordinators, I pursue a similar idea. The actual example (26) is repeated below and a simpler prototype given in (91).

(26)

& geðence

& think

he simle

he always

sie

be

so

æðele

noble

so

unæðele

common

suæðer

whichever

he

he

sie

be

ða

the

æðelu

nobility

ðære

the

æfterran

afterwards

acennesse,

nativity

ðæt

that

is on

is in

ðæm

the

fulluhte,

baptism

(cocura,CP:14.85.14.552)

ʻand whether he be noble or of low birth, let him ever consider the nobility of regeneration, which is in baptism,ʼ (Sweet)

ʻ… let him, noble

(91)

‘Both the noble and the lowborn consider baptism.’

‘As the noble consider baptism, so do the lowborn.’

The suggestion I would like to advance is that these data are actually equatives as well. (92) offers a sketch of (91) as a property equative (parallel to (61)–(65) above). The conjunctive meaning emerges as an inference. If this is right, nothing new needs to be said about these occurrences of

(92)

a.

[CP

[max-inf [CP _{subord} swa1 the lowborn t_{1} consider baptism]]

[CP _{matrix} swa_{2} I_{1} consider baptism]]]]

b.

The way that the lowborn consider baptism is the way that the noble consider baptism.

=> Both the noble and the lowborn consider baptism.

FCRs, finally, are not included in the analyses in the main sections of this paper because their compositional analysis requires a lot of background. OE FCRs and the role of

In (93a) I provide another example of an OE FCR (see also (25) in section 2). In (93b) I offer a specification of its truth conditions, following the analysis of such constructions in the recent literature (

(93)

a

so

hwa

who

ðonne

then

so

his

his

lif

life

to

to

biesene

example

bið

is

oðrum

other

monnum

men

geset,

set

ne

neg

sceal

shall

he

he

no

not

ðæt

that

an

one

don

do

ðæt

that

he

he

ana

alone

wacie,

wake

(cocura,CP:28.193.19.1293)

ʻWhoever, then, makes his life an example to others must not only himself keep awake,ʼ (Sweet)

b.

For all propositions p, p∈{if x sets his life as example then the person who sets his

life as example must keep himself awake | x a person}: p is true.

According to this semantics, FCRs amount to a universal quantification over alternative propositions. The alternatives are introduced into the semantics by the interrogative wh-phrase (

(94)

a.

^{i}^{ii}

‘Whoever sets his life as an example, he is awake.’

b.

[ALL [CP

[CP_{subordinate} ^{i}swa [_{FCR clause} who ^{ii}swa1 [t_{1} sets his life as an example]]]

[CP_{matrix} he is awake]]]

According to this LF, the first occurrence of ^{i}swa_{<s,<,<s,t>,s>>}, parallel to the conditional example (24) (c.f. (39), (40)). The second occurrence of ^{ii}swa1_{def}_{abs}

I conclude that the main proposals made in this paper can plausibly be extended to all data types that the corpus study has found.

In this final subsection I examine the interesting ambiguity in (87). Why are these two apparently unrelated interpretations available for the lexical item? This question probably needs to be asked not just for OE

I propose to relate the ambiguity to the trade-off between overt and covert marking of semantic operations. This point has come up above, e.g. when we investigated equatives with only one

(96)

a.

b.

[ swa_{def}

[ max-inf

[1[ A is t_{1} tall]]]

[swa1 [ A is t_{1} tall]]]

= max-inf(λd.Height(A)≥d)

= max-inf(λd. Height(A)≥d)

We find similar connections in the domain of individuals (type <e>): demonstratives and relative pronouns may be related (

(97)

a.

Der

the

Hund

dog

nieste.

sneezed

‘The dog sneezed.’

b.

Fido,

Fido

der

who

allergisch

allergic

ist,

is

nieste.

sneezed

‘Fido, who is allergic, sneezed.’

c.

Der

the

von

of

Euch

you

ohne

without

Allergie ist,

allergy is

der

that

werfe

throw

das erste

the first

Tempo.

tissue

‘Whoever among you is without allergies, let him throw the first tissue.’

(98)

a.

[CP der [1[ t_{1} von Euch ohne Allergie ist]]]

b.

[CP max-inf [ der1 [ t_{1} von Euch ohne Allergie ist]]]

(97a) exemplifies

In short, I propose that while no immediate semantic connection exists between the two contributions that

An anonymous reviewer points out that these two semantic functions parallel two classical type shifting operations from Partee (

I do not analyse

In the newer literature, maximal informativity is often explored in the context of the operator EXH (e.g.

I come back to footnote 1 here, which made a connection to Partee’s type shifts Lift and Lower. Her early analysis underlines the generality of the basic semantic operations that

The additional file for this article can be found as follows:

Appendix. DOI:

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for Glossa as well as the editors Min-Joo Kim and Ana Aguilar Guevara for helping me to improve the original manuscript. I am also grateful to the students in my summer 2020 online seminar on comparison constructions, and to participants and colleagues Polina Berezovskaya, Vera Hohaus, Lillian Gonzales Rodriguez and Doris Penka. I am especially grateful to all of them for the opportunity to discuss my work and get feedback, during a time at which this was unusually difficult.

The author has no competing interests to declare.