We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
There was no legal definition of the British Empire and it possessed no explicit constitutional meaning. The empire was diverse and incoherent and terminology was not very clear. The terms ‘colony’, ‘dominion’, ‘possession’, ‘plantation’, and other expressions were used in different ways at different times. Indeed, an anti-formalist attitude tended to prevail – often eschewing formal law in favour of informal assurances, customs, and conventions. There was no attempt to establish a uniform legal code. And the sovereignty of the Parliament in London was only one of many types of sovereignty that existed. Much of the British Empire lent itself to a more pluralistic type of sovereignty – one that was divided, shared and indeterminate. Indeed, it was likely that power was the only unifying factor underlying the empire, aided by British naval supremacy, and the fact that, in the nineteenth century, global communications were predominantly in British hands. However, that power could not be derived from a unified, coherent account of legal and political sovereignty. And power by itself lacks legitimacy – it must be validated by something else – which is where sovereignty becomes relevant, in providing that grounding. Yet, the claims of sovereignty made by the empire were often mutually self-contradictory.
The modalities – necessity, possibility, and impossibility – are not topics like the existence of God, creation versus eternity, prophecy, divine attributes, or providence whose “secrets” Maimonides investigates in the Guide. They belong instead to the philosophical and logical framework within which these topics are explored. But they are no less perplexing. The modal terms often differ in meaning in different contexts, depending on whether the subject is physics or metaphysics, and for the falasifa and the mutakallimun. Therefore, in order to address any of the central controversies of the Guide, we must first sort out these modal notions, distinguishing the different conceptions in different contexts.
Let A ≤ B be structures, and ${\cal K}$ a class of structures. An element b ∈ B is dominated by A relative to ${\cal K}$ if for all ${\bf{C}} \in {\cal K}$ and all homomorphisms g, g' : B → C such that g and g' agree on A, we have gb = g'b. Our main theorem states that if ${\cal K}$ is closed under ultraproducts, then A dominates b relative to ${\cal K}$ if and only if there is a partial function F definable by a primitive positive formula in ${\cal K}$ such that FB(a1,…,an) = b for some a1,…,an ∈ A. Applying this result we show that a quasivariety of algebras ${\cal Q}$ with an n-ary near-unanimity term has surjective epimorphisms if and only if $\mathbb{S}\mathbb{P}_n \mathbb{P}_u \left( {\mathcal{Q}_{{\text{RSI}}} } \right)$ has surjective epimorphisms. It follows that if ${\cal F}$ is a finite set of finite algebras with a common near-unanimity term, then it is decidable whether the (quasi)variety generated by ${\cal F}$ has surjective epimorphisms.
Theological explorations of law have sometimes followed a “prophetic” model in which scripture or theological ethics serves as the primary norm for human law. After all, if God has spoken his Law into the world, especially a world beset by sin and oppression, should not human law answer to that Law? Moreover, is not law more authoritative when it is “found” or “discovered” within the framework of divine revelation than when it is “made” autonomously by fallen human beings?
The present paper analyses the meaning of Spanish mood in factive contexts from a Cognitive Grammar perspective. It is argued that terms like assertion and presupposition do not explain the semantics of the subjunctive. Rather, they constitute an initial classification for finding a conceptually grounded explanation of it. The hypothesis is put forward that mood choice in factive contexts can be explained by the elaboration of Maldonado's (1995) notions of dominion and control. On the one hand, the conceptualizer has a low degree of effective control over the described event in presupposed contexts where the subjunctive mood occurs. On the other hand, presupposed contexts with the verb in the indicative mood equates with epistemic control over the described event. Thus, it is argued that the meaning of the subjunctive mood is related to the conceptualizer's epistemic dominion, and to the dominion of effective control. An additional analysis of the subjunctive mood in volitional, causative and perceptual contexts corroborates the initial claim.
We determine which permutative varieties are saturated and classify all nontrivial permutation identities for the class of all globally idempotent semigroups.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.