The below CFJ is 3826. I assign it to R. Lee. status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3826
=============================== CFJ 3826 =============================== A zombie auction is ongoing. ========================================================================== Caller: Aris Barred: G. Judge: R. Lee ========================================================================== History: Called by Aris: 02 Apr 2020 20:53:39 Assigned to R. Lee: [now] ========================================================================== Caller's Evidence: On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 1:52 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 at 13:24, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On 4/1/2020 9:40 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > On 4/1/2020 2:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >> > > >> I bid 347 coins in the current zombie auction. > > >> > > > > > > I withdraw my bid. I bid 83 coins. > > > > > > > Ugh, actually I'd forgotten how broken auctions are when this happens. > > > > I terminate this auction. > > > > Is this effective? It's not clear to me that "cannot transfer any item" > in R2552 means "any item cannot be transferred" or "all items cannot be > transferred". > > -Alexis Gratuitous Discussion (G., Falsifian, Alexis): On 4/2/2020 6:45 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On 4/2/2020 5:44 PM, James Cook wrote: >> On 4/2/2020 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> The full phrase in question is "cannot transfer any item included in a >>> lot" which reads (to me) to say "if there exists a lot for which any >>> item in it can't be transferred, the termination conditions are >>> triggered." >>> >>> Alexis's quoted arguments include the "any item" but leave out the "a >>> lot", which changes the meaning. If it read "included in the lots" >>> rather than "included in a lot" I agree that it would favor the "all >>> items" interpretation. >> >> >> I don't think I understand your reasoning. To me, the "...included in >> a lot in that Auction" is clarifying which set of items the rule is >> referring to, i.e. the set of all items in all lots in the auction. I >> don't see how it resolves the ambiguity of the word "any". >> >> I think disambiguating the meaning of "any" often involves common >> sense. I'm not sure whether that's what needs to happen here. > > > Hmm, but "I can't understand any question" definitely means that none of > them can be understood. While your second example seems, I agree, to be > interpretable by common sense, that's not my first scan of it; my first > scan is pretty strongly that it only applies when the speaker cannot > understand a single one. > > The fact that I almost wrote "when the speaker cannot understand any > question" implies pretty strongly to me that "any" after a negated verb > means "none of them". As contrasted to "If any question cannot be > understood", where "any" comes before the negation. (cf the relationship > between quantification and negation). ==========================================================================