We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
This question is Not Answered
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
+
110663
Sun, 19 Jun 05 06:55 PM
Consider the following sentence:
Sentences using plural nouns without quantifying adjectives or phrases such as "all," "most," "some," etc., are vaque.
This sentence serves as its own example. Did I mean "all sentences," "some sentences," or what?
Is there any language that assumes a default quantifier when none is used?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aruzinsky
+
110679
Sun, 19 Jun 05 09:32 PM
Incidentally, I was the above guest, now registered.
Joined on
Sun, Jun 19 2005
USA
New Member
07
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roro
+
110684
Sun, 19 Jun 05 11:54 PM
Hello aruzinsky. Welcome to EnglishForum. Nice to meet you!
You mean the problem of [Bare Plural] or [Indifinite Plural], right?
I've read that there's some similarity with [Mass Nouns], in their semantics.
Sentences using plural nouns without quantifying adjectives or phrases such as "all," "most," "some," etc., are vaque.
Did I mean "all sentences," "some sentences," or what? |
|
I'd say that this usage of [Bare Plural ] introduces some category into a conversation.
And we cannot replace it neither with "all sentences," nor with "some sentences," in my opinion.
It would change the meaning of this sentence ... but incidentally I'm not a native speaker!
I want to hear other members' opinions. And you asked:
| Is there any language that assumes a default quantifier when none is used? |
|
I don't know! In Japanese (which is my mother tongue) we don't have even (grammaticalized) articles, so there's nothing to talk about.
Good day to you!
Joined on
Mon, Apr 11 2005
Regular Member
581
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aruzinsky
+
110711
Mon, 20 Jun 05 03:03 AM
Hello, Roro.
1. How did you make those quotes? I see no quote button.
2. I am not a linguist. I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering.
3. I was unfamiliar with the term so, after you used it, I did a Google search on "Bare Plural" and found this:
http://www.duke.edu/~kl41/DATA/Bare_Plurals.pdf
4. I do not understand most of it. For example,
-----------------------------------------------------
But the following sentences only show onereading:
Smokers are rude. != Some smokers are rude.
-----------------------------------------------------
All that I can reasonably infer from "Smokers are rude.", (How do you punctuate this?) is that some smokers are rude.
5. I maintain that a common purpose of using English bare plurals is to manipulate people to infer more than what is implied. For example, a politician may publically say "Republicans are evil." with the intent to inflame emotions. Many people will infer "all" in the statement. However, when confronted by the news media, the politician will say he meant "some" and cite a few examples of evil Republicans to support his statement.
6. I believe that most people, including myself, have no formal training in the use of bare plurals. Everything that I know about bare plurals is by example. Now, that I am 58, I find that I don't understand some important concepts behind some bare plurals, therefore I make an effort to avoid using many bare plurals. Okay, old habits die hard.
7. How does any linguist determine what typical people mean and infer except by statistical analysis of large samples? It is my experience that most people do not have a clear idea of what they mean or infer with many bare plurals. It seems to me that maybe some linguists wrongly assume that most people know what they mean, e.g., it might take many years of psychoanalysis to find out what they really mean.
8. How would you train an artificial intelligence (AI) in the use of bare plurals? Pretend that I am AI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roro
+
110726
Mon, 20 Jun 05 05:08 AM
Hello, and thank you for your question, Professor Ruzinsky!
Beforehand I have to warn you: I'm not a linguist yet. I'm studying it still.
I try to answer to your question as far as possible, and when my answers are not satisfactory, I'm sure other members are along with me.
| 1. How did you make those quotes? |
|
You can quote by typing ??. Be sure to leave no spaces between the brackets and 'quote' and '/quote' (which I inserted here).
Could you read the document? Unfortunately I couldn't. File was broken and now there's an indication: it's being repaired. Are the following question concern the content of this document?
Yes, G. Carlson is the leading name in this area.
4. I do not understand most of it. For example,
-----------------------------------------------------
But the following sentences only show one reading:
Smokers are rude. != Some smokers are rude.
-----------------------------------------------------
All that I can reasonably infer from "Smokers are rude.", is that some smokers are rude. |
|
Sorry, I need some background. Maybe these sentences follow, for example:
I like apples. = I like apples in general.
Whales are mammalian. = All whales are mammalian. ?? (I can't read the Carlson's document yet.)
... "Smokers are rude.", ...
How do you punctuate this? |
|
Please ask this same question in the section . You'll get the best answer.
As to your questions 5, 6, 7, 8, I need some time to answer you. Are you in a hurry?
I try to give you some ideas of mine ... that is what I gather from the following literature (I haven't read yet all of them, though).
Biblio:
[1] Carlson, G.N. (1978), "Reference to Kinds in English". Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
[2] Verkuyl, H.J. (1993), A theory of aspectuality. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 64
[3] The Generic Book. G.N. Carlson, F.J. Pelletier (eds.), The University of Chicago Press, 1995
|
|
I'm sure you can find more references you need in these books.
(As far as I know the studies of [Bare Plurals] became rather popular relatively recently.
There are a lot of arguments. Everyone has his own theory. Everyone quotes Carlson, though!
Thus ... I'm afraind I cannot give you some satisfactory answer)
Please feel free to ask us any question.
See you soon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roro
+
110862
Mon, 20 Jun 05 12:21 PM
Hello Mr Ruzinsky,
As to your question about punctuation, please take a look this thread:
Post:106722
(And you can link by typing the post / thread number. Be sure to leave no spaces between the brackets and 'post' and '/post', which I inserted here. And [the post / thread number] is indicated in the URL.)
Now I try to answer to remaining questions, little by little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roro
+
110870
Mon, 20 Jun 05 01:13 PM
Hello Mr Ruzinsky, let me continue.
As you pointed out,
| Sentences using Bare Plurals, that is common nouns without quantifiers, are vague. |
|
It's true. But sentences with definite /indefinite articles, too, have two (or several) usages. For example:
| [1] John gave Peter a book. |
|
The existential quantifier is well suited as a translation of such a. ?x [book(x)...]
On the other hand we cannot capture the meaning if we use the existential quantifier in translating [2].
We should use the universal quantifier.
?x [whale(x)?mammal(x)]
And [2] is called the Generic usage of the indefinite article a.
| [3] He who is late is to be punished. |
|
?x [late(x)?punished(x)]
| [4] Someone who is late is to be punished. |
|
?x [late(x)?punished(x)] (=[3])
| [5] Someone, who is late, is to be punished. |
|
?x [late(x) ? punished(x)]
![Devil [6]](/emoticons/emotion-14.gif) Boys who are late are to be punished. |
|
?x [(boy(x) ? late(x))?punished(x)]
And, there's some similarity between these generic usage and Bare Plurals' usage.
Please bear in mind that what we can do is to classify usages and to give them logical forms.
That is, we don't intend to distinguish the meaning of Bare Plurals in general, from other quantified nouns'.
This is a kind of preliminary remarks. I take a short rest and will continue. If you have any question, or... if I've misunderstood your question, please tell me so, I'll do my best.
With my best regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roro
+
110883
Mon, 20 Jun 05 02:24 PM
7. How does any linguist determine what typical people mean and infer except by statistical analysis of large samples? It is my experience that most people do not have a clear idea of what they mean or infer with many bare plurals. It seems to me that maybe some linguists wrongly assume that most people know what they mean, e.g., it might take many years of psychoanalysis to find out what they really mean.
|
|
The problem of bare plurality concerns my own theme (of linguistic research) only indirectly.
I can answer from my narrow point of view, please bear in mind this! because my view may heavily be biased.
We have to distinguish the meaning of bare plurals from other quantified nouns, mainly because they behave differently. The entailments are different ; therefore we have to capture these differences in logical formulae.
Our primary aim is this: to capture the differences of logical entailments.
And as you would see further, our aim is very humble! but it's impotant for the theory of meaning.
... at least in my opinion :)
Next time I introduce some concrete examples.
See you later, Mr Ruzinsky.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aruzinsky
+
110962
Mon, 20 Jun 05 07:03 PM
Roro, thank you for your time.
| Hello, and thank you for your question, Professor Ruzinsky! |
|
I am not a professor. That title is reserved for high ranking teachers at universities which I am not. In the USA, a Ph.D. carries a title of "Dr." but I prefer that you simply call me by my registered name, "aruzinsky."
Could you read the document? Unfortunately I couldn't. File was broken and now there's an indication: it's being repaired. Are the following question concern the content of this document?
|
|
I had no problem reading the aforementioned PDF file with Adobe Acrobat Reader version 4.0. Yes, the question ... But, because I cannot paste selections from a PDF, I had to alter the symbolism during transcription.
| I'd say that this usage of [Bare Plural ] introduces some category into a conversation. |
|
Please, define "category." I suspect that you are using it in some sense for which it is not defined in my dictionary.
| Please bear in mind that what we can do is to classify usages and to give them logical forms. |
|
How do linguists put hyperbole into logical form? It seems to me that bare plurals are often used as hyperbole, e.g., with "Smokers are rude.", the intent can be to get the receiver to infer "All smokers are rude." as part of an exaggeration.
|
|
|
|
|
|