X-Git-Url: http://lambda.jimpryor.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=lambda.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=intensionality_monad.mdwn;h=5b0ec3a2461646ab3875f664ab4bc1aa79126083;hp=526404cb0b2b7b4a299f5d69bc58921b20c97b4f;hb=13e875628b49325490f5b187994ae3f6580a6da1;hpb=32ee6b1358736ac15bda2aac3074808ee022193a

diff --git a/intensionality_monad.mdwn b/intensionality_monad.mdwn
index 526404cb..5b0ec3a2 100644
--- a/intensionality_monad.mdwn
+++ b/intensionality_monad.mdwn
@@ -24,11 +24,11 @@ First, the familiar linguistic problem:
 	   Ann believes [Bill left].
 	   Ann believes [Cam left].
 
-We want an analysis on which all four of these sentences can be true
-simultaneously.  If sentences denoted simple truth values or booleans,
-we have a problem: if the sentences *Bill left* and *Cam left* are
-both true, they denote the same object, and Ann's beliefs can't
-distinguish between them.
+We want an analysis on which the first three sentences can be true at
+the same time that the last sentence is false.  If sentences denoted
+simple truth values or booleans, we have a problem: if the sentences
+*Bill left* and *Cam left* are both true, they denote the same object,
+and Ann's beliefs can't distinguish between them.
 
 The traditional solution to the problem sketched above is to allow
 sentences to denote a function from worlds to truth values, what
@@ -55,16 +55,16 @@ generalized quantifiers.
 The main difference between the intensional types and the extensional
 types is that in the intensional types, the arguments are functions
 from worlds to extensions: intransitive verb phrases like "left" now
-take intensional concepts as arguments (type s->e) rather than plain
+take individual concepts as arguments (type s->e) rather than plain
 individuals (type e), and attitude verbs like "think" now take
 propositions (type s->t) rather than truth values (type t).
 In addition, the result of each predicate is an intension.
 This expresses the fact that the set of people who left in one world
 may be different than the set of people who left in a different world.
-Normally, the dependence of the extension of a predicate to the world
+(Normally, the dependence of the extension of a predicate to the world
 of evaluation is hidden inside of an evaluation coordinate, or built
 into the the lexical meaning function, but we've made it explicit here
-in the way that the intensionality monad makes most natural.
+in the way that the intensionality monad makes most natural.)
 
 The intenstional types are more complicated than the intensional
 types.  Wouldn't it be nice to make the complicated types available
@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ matter which world is used as an argument.  This is a typical kind of
 thing for a monad unit to do.
 
 Then combining a prediction like *left* which is extensional in its
-subject argument with a monadic subject like `unit ann` is simply bind
+subject argument with an intensional subject like `unit ann` is simply bind
 in action:
 
     bind (unit ann) left 1;; (* true: Ann left in world 1 *)