Semantics- Quantifier Notation [Many x: CAT(x)] OWN(w,x)?

Question

I know that this is right:

Wilma owns many cats.
[Many x: CAT(x)] OWN(w,x)

Is this sentence identical?:
Many cats are owned by Wilma.
[Many x: CAT(x)] OWN(w,x)

Also, for "Every person in this room speaks two languages," I will wind up with two ambiguities (I'll just ask about one). Since I have two quantifiers ("every" and "two"), can I do it like this:
[Every x: PERSON(x)] SPEAK (x, two languages)

or must it be something like this:
[Every x: PERSON(x)] SPEAK {[Two y: LANGUAGE(y)],x}

Answer 1

A clarification - dogs have owners, but cats have staff.

Answer 2

Yes, semantic quantifier notation is done prior to the transformational rules that turn "many cats are owned..." into a passive.

And your last statement is the correct one, where two languages is also written in the proper notation.

Answer 3

hi! before each and every thing are you confident about your question? First case: in case you answer convinced then it really is done! because you've absolutely the fee is continually useful or null and -4 is detrimental huge form! So it really isn't any longer accessible to have -4 >=0. second case: in the journey that your question is vast form 4 and by no skill huge form -4 then we could have this inequation: | 2 - x | < 4 or as you need to understand: we've | a | < b is an identical as -b< a < b so | 2 - x | <4 is an identical as -4< 2 - x < 4 -4-2<2-x-2<4-2 -6<-x<2 then we can multiply by -a million it truly is a detrimental huge form so we can replace < to > and > to < (-6)*(-a million)>(-x)*(-a million)>2*(-a million) 6>x>-2 so the finest answer is -2