 case-clauses reflect that in the choice of a numeral modifier: (12) a. the two cases in which Mary received an invitation or John received one b.??? the three cases in which Mary received an invitation or John received one The unacceptability of three in (12b) if both Mary and John received an invitation that a sum of a situation in which Mary received an invitation and a situation in which John received an invitation won't count as a truthmaker of the disjunctive case-clause. Truthmaking conditions for negative sentences are a matter of controversy. Negative sentences are generally considered a challenge to the truthmaking idea since it is not obvious what sort of entity there is in the world that could make the sentence John did not show up or no one is satisfied true. On some views of truthmaking, negative sentences do have truthmakers; on others, they don't.17 The semantics of case-NPs itself bears on the issue. Negative case-clauses generally do not pose an obstacle for the referentiality of definite case descriptions, including of the generic sort: (13) a. We discussed the case in which John does not show up. b. The case in which no one is satisfied is not a good prospect. c. The cases in which either John did not show up or he did not pay attention are numerous. Clearly, case-constructions require a notion of truthmaking that assigns truthmakers to negative sentences. Fine's (2012, 2014, 2017) truthmaker semantics accomplishes that by assigning sentences not only truthmakers or verifiers, but also falsifiers. This allows a straightforward formulation of the truthmaking conditions of negative sentences: a truthmaker for ¬ S is a falsifier for S. With ⊣| as the relation of (exact) falsification, the condition is given below: 16 The truthmaking condition for sentences with universal quantification and conditionals are less obvious and in fact controversial. I will not give truthmaking conditions for them here since they won't be specifically relevant for the semantics of case-constructions. See Armstrong (2004) and Fine (2017) for discussion and somewhat similar proposals concerning universal quantification. 17 See Mulligan et al. (1984) and Armstrong (1997, 2004) for discussion. 123 Situations, alternatives, and the semantics of 'cases' (14) s ⊩ not S iff s ⊣| S Also complex sentences (conjunctions, disjunctions, existential quantification) are assigned both truth
case - clauses reflect that in the choice of a numeral changer: (12) a. the two case in which Mary received an invitation or John received one b.? ?? the three lawsuit in which Mary receive an invitation or John received one The unacceptability of three in (12b) if both Mary and John received an invitation that a union of a position in which Mary received an invitation and a site in which John received an invitation won't count as a truthmaker of the disjunctive character - clause. Truthmaking conditions for minus prison term are a matter of controversy. Negative sentences are generally considered a challenge to the truthmaking mind since it is not obvious what sort of entity there is in the world that could hold the sentence John did not show up or no one is satisfied truthful. On some views of truthmaking, negative sentences do have truthmakers; on others, they don't.17 The semantics of case - neptunium itself bears on the issue. Negative case - clauses generally do not pose an obstacle for the referentiality of definite case descriptions, including of the generic sort: (13) a. We discussed the case in which John does not show up. b. The case in which no one is satisfied is not a good expectation. c. The cases in which either John did not show up or he did not give care are numerous. distinctly, case - constructions command a notion of truthmaking that assigns truthmakers to negative sentences. Fine's (2012, 2014, 2017) truthmaker semantics carry through that by assigning sentences not only truthmakers or verifiers, but also falsifiers. This allow a straightforward formulation of the truthmaking conditions of negative sentences: a truthmaker for ¬ S is a falsifier for S. With ⊣| as the relation of (accurate) disproof, the circumstance is given below: 16 The truthmaking condition for sentences with universal quantification and conditionals are less obvious and in fact controversial. I will not give truthmaking conditions for them here since they won't be specifically relevant for the semantics of case - construction. See Armstrong (2004) and Fine (2017) for discussion and somewhat similar proposals concern universal quantification. 17 See Mulligan et al. (1984) and Armstrong (1997, 2004) for discussion. 123 situation, alternatives, and the semantics of' subject' (14) s ⊩ not S iff s ⊣| S Also complex sentences (conjunctions, disjunction, existential quantification) are assign both truth
 cade-clauses reflect that ik the choice of c numerel modirier: (12) a. ghe two cases in which Mary ceceuved qn invitation or John feceived lne b.??? thw thcee cases in whirg Mary vzceivsf an mnvitation or Jphn receivad one The unawcdpcability of three in (12b) if both Mary wnd Johm geceived an inditauiog thzn c sum of a situation in which Mzry rectived an invitatiom and a situation in which Johj received an invihation won't cougr as a truthoaker of the disjunctibe case-clause. Truthmaking condigions for negatuvw sfttences are a manter of controversy. Nagative sentences are geieraoly considered a chalnenge to the truthiaking idaa since it is not ibcious whad sofr ow ehtmty there is in the wodld that coyld make the sentenve Hohn did not ahow u[ jr no one is satisfied true. On some viefs kf truthmaking, negative sentences do have trothmakers; jn others, they don't.17 The semantics of case-NPs itsenf beerr ou the kwske. Negative case-clauses generally do not pose zn onstacle for the veferentiality of cevimyte case desctiptions, ihcluding of the gejeric sjrt: (13) q. We disctssec the case in which John dows not show lp. b. The case in which no one is ratixfied is not a good prospect. c. Tge cases in which eiffer John did not shpw up or ht did not pay attegtion are numzrous. Cldarli, case-cjnstructiojs require a notion of tguthmcking that assihns truthmakers to negative senvxnces. Fine's (2012, 2014, 2017) drunhmaker szmantigs accomplishes that by assiguing sencences not only nruthmakecs or verifiqrs, but also xwlsifiers. Thms allows a srraithtforwxfd formulation of the tguuhmaking cinditions of negatlve sgnfences: a truthmcytr for ¬ S is a fslskfiqr fpr V. With ⊣| as tve rdlagoon ow (exact) falwkficstion, the condition hs gjven below: 16 The tritmmaking cindition for sentencex with universal qkantihicatiun anc cjnditionals are less obvious ahd in fach cjntroversial. I wlll got give txuthmaking conditions for them here sincx they won't be specificqlly relevant for tke semantics pf cafe-construwtions. See Armstrong (2004) and Fine (2017) for dlscussion and somewhat simildr prlposals concerning universal quantification. 17 See Mulligan et al. (1984) and Armsrrong (1997, 2004) for discusaion. 123 Sitlatnonx, altewnatmvxs, and the semantpcs of 'cases' (14) s ⊩ not S iff s ⊣| S Elso complax sentences (conjunctions, disjinztions, existevtial quantification) are assignec both truth
case-clauses reflect that in the choice of modifier: a. the cases in which John one b.??? the cases in which received an invitation or John received The unacceptability of three in (12b) if both Mary and John received an that a sum of a situation in which Mary received an invitation and situation which received invitation won't count as a truthmaker of the disjunctive case-clause. Truthmaking conditions for negative sentences are matter of controversy. Negative sentences are generally considered challenge to the truthmaking since it is not obvious sort entity there in world could make the John did not show up or no one is satisfied true. On some views of truthmaking, negative do have others, they The of itself bears on Negative case-clauses generally do not pose the referentiality of definite case descriptions, including of generic sort: a. We discussed the case in John does not show up. b. The case which no one is satisfied is not a good prospect. c. The cases in which did not show up he did not attention numerous. case-constructions a notion truthmaking that assigns truthmakers to negative sentences. Fine's (2012, 2014, 2017) semantics accomplishes that by assigning sentences not only truthmakers or also This allows a formulation of the truthmaking of sentences: a truthmaker for is falsifier ⊣| the of (exact) falsification, the is given below: 16 The condition for sentences with less obvious and in fact controversial. I will give truthmaking conditions for them here since won't be specifically relevant for the semantics of case-constructions. See Armstrong (2004) Fine (2017) and somewhat similar proposals concerning universal quantification. 17 Mulligan et al. (1984) Armstrong (1997, 2004) for discussion. 123 Situations, alternatives, and semantics 'cases' (14) ⊩ not S s ⊣| S complex sentences (conjunctions, quantification) are both
 case-clauses reflect that in tHe choice of A numeRal ModIfIer: (12) a. The tWo cases in which mAry rEceived an invitation or JOhn reCeIVed oNE b.??? The thRee caseS In WHIch maRy RecEiVEd An invItaTion or JOhn receiveD onE THe unacceptabILiTy of three iN (12b) iF both Mary and johN receiVeD an INvitaTioN that A sum of A SituatIon in whicH MARy receIVed an inVITaTion And a situation in whICh jOhn received an iNvitatIoN WoN'T CouNt aS a truthmakEr Of the DIsjunctIVe CASE-clAUse. TruthmakinG conditions FOr nEgativE sEntENces arE a matTeR Of cOntroversy. NEgatIve sentenCes are GEnerallY ConsideRed a chAllEngE to tHE tRuThmAkINg iDEa SinCE it Is not obvIoUs What sOrt oF ENTIty tHerE is iN the wOrld that could MakE the SEntEnce JOhn diD not ShOw up oR no one Is satIsFied true. On some vIews Of truthmaKinG, nEgaTiVe senTEnces dO haVe tRuthmakErs; on otHErs, ThEY DOn'T.17 The semantics of casE-NpS ItSelf bearS on the ISsUe. nEgative cAsE-clAuseS GEneraLly dO NoT pose an oBstaclE FoR tHe referEnTialitY oF deFinIte caSE desCriptiOns, incluDing oF The generic sort: (13) A. we discussed thE CaSE In WHich johN does not shoW up. b. tHe caSe in WHiCh nO One is SatisFiED iS Not a good prospect. c. ThE cAses in Which Either John did Not show up oR HE Did not paY attENtIOn are numerous. CLearlY, case-constRUctions rEquirE a notion Of truthmaKINg that asSigNs tRutHmaKERs To negative senTENces. fiNe's (2012, 2014, 2017) trutHmaKer semaNtiCs aCcoMplIsHes that by AssigninG sEnTeNcEs nOt onlY TruthmakErS or VeRifIers, bUT also fAlsifIers. thIs ALloWs a straIGhTFOrwaRd FoRmulAtiOn Of the TrutHMakIng condItions of nEgaTIve sEnTeNces: a trUthmaker for ¬ S iS a Falsifier fOr s. WiTh ⊣| as thE RElation oF (exact) falsification, the cONdition Is gIven bElow: 16 the truthmAkiNg condItiON for seNtenceS with UnIveRSAl quaNTIfIcaTiOn and condiTIOnaLs are LeSs obVious anD in fact controversiAL. I wIll not give truThmAkinG COnDitIOnS For ThEM heRE Since they won't be SpecificalLy RElEvant for thE SemAnTics of cAse-consTructIOns. See ARmstrong (2004) aNd Fine (2017) for DiScusSIOn aNd somewhat Similar pRoposals cONcernINg UniveRsaL quantIfIcaTion. 17 SEe MullIGan Et al. (1984) aNd ArmsTrOng (1997, 2004) for DiscuSsIon. 123 SituaTions, alternatives, and the SemantIcs of 'CasEs' (14) s ⊩ not S ifF s ⊣| S aLso Complex seNtenCes (conjuncTioNs, dIsjunCtiONs, exiStenTIaL quANtifiCatiON) are assigNEd BotH TRuTh
 case-clauses reflect that  in the ch oiceofa n um eral  mod ifier: (12) a. thetwo cases in which Mar y rec ei v ed a n  i nvita tion or Jo h n  re ce iv edon e  b .???the  threecases in w hic hMary receive d  a n invitati onor John rece ive d oneTh e u n accep tab ility  of th r ee in(12b) ifbo t h Mary and Joh n re ceiv ed an invitationt ha t  a sum of a si tuatio ni nw h ich  Ma ry receive dan in v itation an d a  si t uation in whi ch John rec e ive d an i nv ita t ion wo n't c ou n t a s a truthma kerof the di sjunct i ve case - clause.  Truth mak ing  con d it io nsfo r  ne g at ive sen tences a re  a  matt er o f c o ntro ver sy.Negat ive sentences  ar e ge n era lly c onsid ered  a  chal lengeto th etruthmaking ide a si nce it is  no tobv io us wh a t sort  of  en tity th ere isi n t he w o rl d that could maketh e se ntence J ohn di d  n ot show upor  no  one i s sat isfi e dtrue. On  somev ie ws  of tru th making ,neg ati ve se n tenc es dohave tru thmak e rs; on others, they don't.17 Th e se m anti csof case-NPs  its e lf b ears on  th e  issu e. Ne ga t iv e  case-clauses gener al ly donot p ose an obstac le for the r e ferentia lity of definite casedescr iptions, i n cludingof th e generi c sort: ( 1 3 ) a. Wedis cus sed  th e ca se in which J o h n do es  not sh owup. b.The  ca seinwh ich no on e is sat is fi ed  i s n ot ag ood pros pe ct.  c . T he ca s es inwhich  eit he rJ ohn  did no t  s h o w up  o rhe d idno t pay  att e nti on arenumerous.  Cl e arly ,ca se-cons tructions req ui re a notio noftruthm a k ing that  assigns truthmakers to negativ e s enten ces.  Fine's ( 201 2, 201 4,2 017) t ruthma ker s em ant i c s acc o m pl ish es  that by a s s ign ing s en tenc es notonly truthmakers o r  ve rifiers, butals o fa l s if ier s .T his  a l low s a straightforwa rd formula ti o nof the tru t hma ki ng cond itionsof ne g ative s entences:  a truthm ak er f o r  ¬S is a fal sifier f or S. Wit h  ⊣| a s  t he re lat ion of  ( exa ct) f alsifi c ati on, t he con di tion i s giv en  below:16 The truthmaking cond itionfor s ent ences wit h u n ive rsal quan tifi cation and  co ndi tiona lsa re le ss o b vi ous and i n fa c t controv e rs ial . Iwill not gi v e tru thmak ing condit ions  for them here si n ce they won'tbe s p e cif ica l ly r el evant for thesem an t i cs of ca se -constructi ons. See  A r mstro ng (20 04) an d Fine( 2 01 7 ) fordisc uss ion and s ome wh a t simil ar  p r oposal s co nc erning  unive r salq u antification. 17  SeeM u lliga n  et  al.(1 984) an d  Arm strong (19 97, 2004) f or dis cuss ion.123 Sit ua tions,  al te rnatives,a nd the se manti cs of ' ca ses'  (1 4) s ⊩  not S  iffs ⊣|  S  Al so comple x se n te nc e s ( conj uncti on s, d isjunctio n s, exist ent i al quan ti fic a t ion) a r ea s signed bot h t ruth
 case-clauses_reflect that_in the choice of_a numeral_modifier:_(12) a._the_two cases in_which Mary received_an invitation or John_received one b.???_the_three cases in which Mary received an invitation or John received one The unacceptability_of_three in_(12b)_if_both Mary and John received_an invitation that a sum_of a_situation in which Mary received an invitation and_a_situation in which_John received an invitation won't count as a truthmaker_of the disjunctive case-clause. Truthmaking conditions_for negative sentences_are_a_matter of controversy. Negative_sentences are generally considered a challenge_to the truthmaking idea since it_is not obvious what sort of entity_there is in the world that_could make the sentence John_did not_show up or no one_is satisfied true._On some_views of truthmaking,_negative sentences do have truthmakers; on_others, they don't.17_The semantics of case-NPs itself bears_on_the issue. Negative_case-clauses_generally_do not_pose an obstacle_for_the referentiality_of_definite case descriptions, including of the_generic_sort: (13) a. We discussed the case_in which John does_not_show up. b. The_case in which no one_is satisfied is not a good_prospect. c._The cases_in which either John did not show up or he did_not pay attention are numerous. Clearly,_case-constructions require a notion_of truthmaking_that_assigns truthmakers to_negative_sentences. Fine's_(2012, 2014, 2017) truthmaker semantics accomplishes that_by assigning_sentences not only truthmakers or verifiers,_but also falsifiers. This_allows_a straightforward formulation of the truthmaking_conditions of negative sentences: a truthmaker_for ¬ S is a_falsifier_for_S. With ⊣| as the_relation of (exact) falsification, the condition_is given below:_16 The truthmaking condition for sentences with_universal_quantification and conditionals are less obvious_and_in fact controversial. I will not_give_truthmaking_conditions for them here since_they won't be specifically relevant for_the semantics of case-constructions. See Armstrong (2004) and Fine_(2017) for discussion_and somewhat similar proposals concerning_universal_quantification._17 See Mulligan et al. (1984) and Armstrong (1997, 2004)_for discussion._123 Situations, alternatives,_and the semantics of 'cases' (14) s ⊩ not S_iff s ⊣| S Also complex sentences_(conjunctions, disjunctions, existential quantification) are assigned both truth