Montague's analysis of the well-known temperature paradox poses a problem for Gupta's syllogism, whose surface syntax differs from that of the temperature syllogism by the addition of the intensional adverb necessarily . Lasersohn (2005) argues that the puzzle arising from these syllogisms can be solved if one adopts the Fregean presuppositional treatment of definite descriptions, and he concludes that the temperature-Gupta puzzle provides an argument in favor of such treatment. This article shows that the analysis of definite descriptions is in fact orthogonal to the puzzle. Instead, the differences between the two syllogisms turn out to stem from the temporal interpretation of their premises.
This article presents the observation that disjunction cannot take wide scope in negative non-wh-questions and declaratives with a preposed negative element. This rules out the alternative question reading for non-wh-questions with preposed negation and the wide scope or reading for neg-inverted declaratives. We show that effects parallel to the ones associated with preposed negation can be reproduced in affirmative non-wh-questions and declaratives when focus is involved. We propose that preposed negation in non-wh-questions and preposed negative adverbials in declaratives necessarily contribute focus marking (in particular, verum focus) and argue that the lack of wide scope disjunction reading in both declaratives and non-wh-questions results as a by-product of the interaction between focus and the LF syntax of disjunctive structures, which we argue involves ellipsis.