Definitions of 'proper noun' describe it as a noun designating a particular being or thing.

But that is not enough, because in "I am riding my bike.", 'my bike' is a particular bike.

So the definitions add that a proper noun does not take a limiting modifier (such as 'my', 'this', 'a', 'an', ...).

Does anyone know of a satisfactory definition of 'proper noun' that does not resort to the limiting- modifier exclusion?
1 2 3 4 5
Comments  (Page 3) 

I can see the logical signs properly.

You have gone this far; you may as well explain all of Montague.

(I have downloaded a paper on Montague Grammar by Amy Kao. I was going to pursue Frege's philosophy of language, but it looks like Montague built on Frege's work.)

Hello, Mike in Japan, thank you for your very kind words !
Seems ... are you always behind this screen? to help us?

I'm ashamed... a little bit ... (please edit my writings)

Very good day to you! Roro
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Yes indeed, this has been an interesting thread-- I am learning a lot from it. Since it is so well-developed, however, I think it belongs in our Linguistics Discussion Forum, so I will move it over there, where the discussion on Montague et alia can continue.
Emotion: smileHello, Mister Micawber! I'm afraid it bored everybody...
( It's part of my current task and, in addition, I've been thinkng I treat purely linguistic matters.
I had never intended to torment you ... believe me ! )

No, it's not torment Roro.
Mr Micawber's idea to move the thread to linguistics was a good one because the thread would probably have been beyond the comprehension of many users.
This is a better home for it.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Hello, Mike in Japan, hello, rvw, Mister Micawber, paco, now I realized how my view was narrow. Maybe I try to build some bridge.

(1) I'm so sorry: in my model, every individual has some name arbitrary, so I skipped over morphological aspects, my own convenienceEmotion: smile

(2) And there are improtant differnces between [1] individual's name (proper noun), [2] common noun --- this is a set of individuals, and [3] quantified terms (e.g. the man, a cat, no dog, every woman, etc.).

(3) And a *** thing is : why [1] and [3] act in the same way, even though they refer things differently?

For example:

#John loves Mary.
#John loves nobody.
#Everyone loves somebody.
#Nobody loves the man.

And ..here's where Montague comes...!

(Actually this is a part of my task ... I should explain Montague's system soon ... so I was too engaged in it.
You know, I took it for granted, without knowing it....! )

Thank you for your kind words, Mike in Japan!
Hello, everyone ! I'd like to add just a few words to this tough question.

I thought (in the above) we cannot take Mill's definition , because B. Russell once strongly argued that genuin proper names are only this, that. This satisfies Mill's definition, but Russell's proposal was, naturally, rejected by majority. This is one reason why I cannot accept Mill. ( I'm sorry, paco, I didn't explained to you about it then. I didn't have any better idea then... I regret.... )

I think MrPedantic's definition is fairly appropriate one --- A proper noun denotes an object whose address does not change of speaker or situation ---.

But there still remains a question ... how about an imaginary object ?? Achilles, Sharlock Holms, for example.
( They denote an object...? )

And I thought Montague Grammar ( with Kripke's thought ) can give some concrete answer even to this imagimary proper noun. It is really something, but I always feel ...it's not so good to stick to this formalism.

This is all my humble thought...
...how about an imaginary object ?? Achilles...

Perhaps an imaginary object would have an imaginary 'address':

"Whoever says 'Achilles, son of Peleus' refers to a fictive hero who sulked in his tent outside the walls of Troy."

— "But what about Achilles Tatius? Or those real people in succeeding centuries, who were named after Achilles?" (Claude Achille Debussy, etc.)

"Again: when you and I say 'Achilles Tatius', I do not mean one thing, and you another. We both refer to the same addressee."

Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Hello, everyone! Hello, MrPedantic.

Yes, it's a very, very good question !

When I read your definition I didn't take this word as wide as possible.....? maybe ..... but it seems to me .... this question goes back to the really fundamental problem: what is the meaning? How it should be described in the theory of the meaning?

There's one position: the mental image theory of meaning (against which earlier Wittgenstein strongly opposed, and his refutation is generally accepted now, at least in ivory towers, though! ).

There's another position: the correspondence thoery of meaning. It's main concept is . I take this position.

... And, you know, this choice has rather far-reaching implications for the treatment of various concrete questions. If I want to stick to my opinion and refute your argument, I should propose some persuasive argument. Let me try!

I'm not a specialist at all in this respect. So anybody correct me if I make a mistake: I will really appreciate that. And... I won't take such an attitude as if I'm right, I know something, in this question. (I'm really beg your pardon, paco. You were always very kind to me.)

For me this is a challenging thing: in order to express, in English, what I think, I have to grasp the point, and plainly arrange its content. Umm.... I'd like to go, taking frequent rests to catch my still humble thought.

Well, when I get it, I'd like to come back to your discussion!

See you later, everyone!
Show more