formatting re Montague

diff --git a/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn b/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn
index f1d5925..c8caa0d 100644 (file)
--- a/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn
+++ b/topics/week13_coroutines_exceptions_and_aborts.mdwn
@@ -378,11 +378,11 @@ In fact you've already seen this several times this semester---recall how in our
 
 This inversion of control should also remind you of Montague's treatment of determiner phrases in ["The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English"](http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631215417%5CPortner.pdf) (PTQ).
 
 
 This inversion of control should also remind you of Montague's treatment of determiner phrases in ["The Proper Treatment of Quantification in Ordinary English"](http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/0631215417%5CPortner.pdf) (PTQ).
 

-A naive semantics for atomic sentences will say the subject term is of type `e`, and the predicate of type `e -> t`, and that the subject provides an argument to the function expressed by the predicate.
+> A naive semantics for atomic sentences will say the subject term is of type `e`, and the predicate of type `e -> t`, and that the subject provides an argument to the function expressed by the predicate.

 
 

-Monatague proposed we instead take the subject term to be of type `(e -> t) -> t`, and that now it'd be the predicate (still of type `e -> t`) that provides an argument to the function expressed by the subject.
+> Monatague proposed we instead take the subject term to be of type `(e -> t) -> t`, and that now it'd be the predicate (still of type `e -> t`) that provides an argument to the function expressed by the subject.

 
 

-If all the subject did then was supply an `e` to the `e -> t` it receives as an argument, we wouldn't have gained anything we weren't already able to do. But of course, there are other things the subject can do with the `e -> t` it receives as an argument. For instance, it can check whether anything in the domain satisfies that `e -> t`; or whether most things do; and so on.
+> If all the subject did then was supply an `e` to the `e -> t` it receives as an argument, we wouldn't have gained anything we weren't already able to do. But of course, there are other things the subject can do with the `e -> t` it receives as an argument. For instance, it can check whether anything in the domain satisfies that `e -> t`; or whether most things do; and so on.

 
 This inversion of who is the argument and who is the function receiving the argument is paradigmatic of working with continuations.
 
 
 This inversion of who is the argument and who is the function receiving the argument is paradigmatic of working with continuations.