[SCL] the relational component of an SCL interpetation

[Robert E. Kent]

> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 12:33:34PM -0800, Robert E. Kent wrote:
> > Of course, PredCon is a component of the lexicon, whereas R is a
> > component of an interpretation for a lexicon. When we use the
> > terminology "interpretation for a lexicon" we seem to be regarding the
> > lexicon as a parameter for the interpretation. But another approach is
> > to incorporate the lexicon as the "type" component of an
> > interpretation. In that way we could identify PredCon with R.
>
> Except that predicate constants are linguistic and relations aren't.
>
> Your suggested identification is elegant, perhaps, but let us not for
> the mere sake of abstract generality muddy the word/world distinction
> reflected in our our sharp division between languages and their
> interpretations.

Well I was actually trying to simplify (the object notions -- both
linguistic, worldly and unified -- since I want to define morphisms on these
object notions). The unified picture that I am considering consists of a
classification [worldly-things, linguistic-expressions, |=] with the
worldly-instance things being in one pot, the linguistic-type things being
in another pot, and an incidence relation connecting worldly-instance things
to linguistic-type things. It seems to work nicely for FOL. But the question
is, will it also work nicely for SCL?

Robert