Count Nouns and Mass Nouns

Analysis 38 (4):167 - 172 (1978)
Abstract
The paper argues that one distinction between concrete count nouns and concrete mass nouns is that geach's derelativization thesis is valid for the former but not valid for the latter. That is, Where 'f' is a concrete count noun 'x is (an) f' means 'for some y, X is the same f as y', But where 'f' is a concrete mass noun this is not so; rather, In this case, 'x is f' is tantamount to 'for some y, X is the f of y'. It is further suggested that abstract nouns are in this respect to be grouped with concrete mass nouns
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1093/analys/38.4.167
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,208
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Substance: The Constitution of Reality.P. M. S. Hacker - 1979 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4 (1):239-261.
Mass Nouns and Plurals.Peter Lasersohn - 2011 - In Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger & Paul Portner (eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Natural Language Meaning. De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 2.
Language and Ontology in Early Chinese Thought.Chris Fraser - 2007 - Philosophy East and West 57 (4):420-456.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-05-29

Total downloads

58 ( #90,989 of 2,172,870 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

2 ( #172,512 of 2,172,870 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums