Documentation

Linglib.Semantics.Quantification.Exceptive

Exceptive Quantifiers #

[PW06] [VF93] [Gaj02]

Semantic operators for "but"-exceptive constructions:

"every student but John passed" = every(student \ {John}, passed) ∧ ¬passed(John)

Only universal quantifiers (positive or negative) license exceptives.

Von Fintel (1993) Operators #

Peters & Westerståhl (2006) Operators #

Key Results #

Under CONSERV, only PositiveStrong/NegativeStrong quantifiers produce non-trivial exceptive readings — explaining the universal-only pattern.

Von Fintel (1993) Exceptive Operators #

def Quantification.Exceptive.ExcI {α : Type u_1} (Q : GQ α) (A E B : αProp) :

Inclusive exceptive ([VF93]): Q(A \ E, B) ∧ ¬Q(A, B).

"Every student but John passed" = every(student \ {John}, passed) ∧ ¬every(student, passed)

The second conjunct asserts that the exception matters: without removing E, the quantified claim would be false.

Equations
Instances For
    def Quantification.Exceptive.ExcE {α : Type u_1} (Q : GQ α) (A E B : αProp) :

    Exclusive exceptive ([VF93]): Q(A \ E, B) ∧ complement condition on E.

    "No student but John passed" = no(student \ {John}, passed) ∧ John passed

    The complement condition requires that all excepted elements satisfy B.

    Equations
    Instances For

      Peters & Westerståhl (2006) Exceptive Operators #

      def Quantification.Exceptive.IsException {α : Type u_1} (a : α) (A B : αProp) :

      Whether an element is an "exception" for a positive generalization Q₁(A, B): an element of A that is NOT in B (i.e., a counterexample to the generalization).

      For "every student passed", John is an exception if John is a student who did not pass — i.e., John ∈ A \ B.

      For negative generalizations (like "no"), the notion inverts: an exception would be an element of A ∩ B. We handle this via IsExceptionNeg.

      [PW06] Ch 8, p299.

      Equations
      Instances For
        def Quantification.Exceptive.IsExceptionNeg {α : Type u_1} (a : α) (A B : αProp) :

        Whether an element is an "exception" for a negative generalization: an element of A that IS in B (a counterexample to "no A is B").

        [PW06] Ch 8, p299.

        Equations
        Instances For
          def Quantification.Exceptive.ExcW {α : Type u_1} (Q₁ : GQ α) (C A B : αProp) :

          Weak exceptive ([PW06] Ch 8, (8.31)):

          Exc_w(Q₁, C)(A, B) ⟺ Q₁(A \ C, B) ∧ something in A ∩ C is an exception for Q₁

          "Every student but John passed" (weak reading): = every(student \ {John}, passed) ∧ ∃x ∈ student ∩ {John}, x ∉ passed = every(student \ {John}, passed) ∧ John didn't pass

          The weak version only requires SOME excepted element to be an actual exception.

          Equations
          Instances For
            def Quantification.Exceptive.ExcS {α : Type u_1} (Q₁ : GQ α) (C A B : αProp) :

            Strong exceptive ([PW06] Ch 8, (8.33)):

            Exc_s(Q₁, C)(A, B) ⟺ Q₁(A \ C, B) ∧ A ∩ C ≠ ∅ ∧ everything in A ∩ C is an exception for Q₁

            "Every student but John passed" (strong reading): = every(student \ {John}, passed) ∧ {John} ∩ student ≠ ∅ ∧ ∀x ∈ student ∩ {John}, x ∉ passed = every(student \ {John}, passed) ∧ John is a student ∧ John didn't pass

            The strong version requires EVERY excepted element to be an actual exception, and that the exception set is non-empty.

            P&W argue this is the correct analysis: the UC (Uniqueness Condition) follows from Exc_s but not from Exc_w.

            Equations
            Instances For
              def Quantification.Exceptive.ExcWNeg {α : Type u_1} (Q₁ : GQ α) (C A B : αProp) :

              Weak exceptive for negative quantifiers ([PW06] Ch 8, (8.31)):

              Exc_w(no, C)(A, B) ⟺ no(A \ C, B) ∧ something in A ∩ C is in B

              "No student but John passed" (weak reading): = no(student \ {John}, passed) ∧ John passed

              Equations
              Instances For
                def Quantification.Exceptive.ExcSNeg {α : Type u_1} (Q₁ : GQ α) (C A B : αProp) :

                Strong exceptive for negative quantifiers ([PW06] Ch 8, (8.33)):

                Exc_s(no, C)(A, B) ⟺ no(A \ C, B) ∧ A ∩ C ≠ ∅ ∧ everything in A ∩ C is in B

                "No student but John passed" (strong reading): = no(student \ {John}, passed) ∧ John is a student ∧ John passed

                Equations
                Instances For

                  Compatibility (von Fintel 1993) #

                  A quantifier is exceptive-compatible iff there exist A, E, B such that ExcI(Q, A, E, B). [VF93]: only (variants of) every and no are compatible.

                  Equations
                  Instances For
                    theorem Quantification.Exceptive.positiveStrong_exceptive {α : Type u_1} (Q : GQ α) (hCons : Conservative Q) (hPS : PositiveStrong Q) (hNontriv : ∃ (A : αProp) (B : αProp), ¬Q A B) :

                    PositiveStrong quantifiers can yield non-trivial inclusive exceptives.

                    For "every": every(A\E, B) can be true (all non-excepted As are Bs) while every(A, B) is false (the excepted elements fail B). [VF93], [PW06] Ch 8.

                    Symmetric quantifiers are NOT exceptive-compatible (under CONSERV + PS).

                    Intuition: under CONSERV + SYMM, Q depends only on |A ∩ B|. Removing elements from A while keeping them out of E cannot simultaneously make Q(A\E, B) true and Q(A, B) false, because the intersection |A∩B| ⊇ |(A\E)∩B| — removing elements from A can only shrink the intersection, not enlarge it. [VF93], [PW06] Ch 8.