Re: Plural Nouns without Quantifiers

Roro — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 03:17:28 GMT

Hello aruzinsky, and I'm really sorry for my misunderstanding. These kinds of problems don't exist in my mother tongue, so I'm afraid I cannot give you any convincing data or analyses.

I need other members' help!

And, by "extreme," I meant not "uncommon."
I don't think that some hyperbolic effect is contained in bare plurals. I intended treat only this constant.

I've never visited the Legal English forum, seems interesting. I'd sincerely recommend it and wish you success.

And the last one: [It seems to me that a classification of usages should begin with a collecting of survey data to be statistically analysed. It might be determined that some language constructs are used very inconsistently, even in the same contexts, in which case, it may not be appropriate to give such a language construct a single usage (?) or logical form (?). ]

Sure, I'm interested the function of the language in communication, too. But we don't have tools for proper analyses. And you misunderstood what I said before, I'm afraid. As I said, even sentences with definite /indefinite articles, too, have two (or several) usages. Needless to say about bare plurals.
I've never said that we should give [such a language construct a single usage or logical form].

Anyway, unfortunately the problem of bare plurality concerns my theme. I'll be interested in your discussion, and will be glad if I could do something for you..!

Yours faithfully,

Re: Plural Nouns without Quantifiers

aruzinsky — Tue, 21 Jun 2005 00:34:11 GMT

Roro, again thank you for your responses. I am in no hurry. It is not important that you respond.

And as to the question if bare plurals' main function is hyperbole ... or as you put it before ... to manipulate people to infer more than what is implied ... or not, I doubt it. Isn't this one of extreme cases, is it?

If by "extreme," you mean "uncommon," then my answer is, "No, not in modern society." In modern society, there are many professional spin doctors, advertising agencies, and lawyers who make a living by manipulating people to infer more than what is implied.

I think that many bare plurals are tools for the unscrupulous to avoid responsibily for what is inferred. This responsibilty can be legal which reminds me that I should probably post questions about bare plurals at the Legal English forum.

I believe such nuances like or other, which poeple express using bare plurals, without knowing what effect they actually have, belong to pragmatics. And I believe also, pragmatic meanings are based on logical meaning of expressions. Thus what we should do at first is to classify usages and to give them logical forms.

Again, I do not think "nuances" is appropriate when applied to hyperbole (and ambiguity) in advertising, politics, and legal systems. Hyperbole and ambiguity have a strong influence on your daily life.

According to my dictionary, pragmatics (which I just now looked up) form a branch of linguistics, therefore I expect that this is the correct forum to discuss pragmatics.

It seems to me that a classification of usages should begin with a collecting of survey data to be statistically analysed. It might be determined that some language constructs are used very inconsistently, even in the same contexts, in which case, it may not be appropriate to give such a language construct a single usage (?) or logical form (?).

Search results for 'tag:Nouns tag:Legal English' matching tags 'Nouns' and 'Legal English'

Re: Plural Nouns without Quantifiers

Re: Plural Nouns without Quantifiers