more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
The definite descriptions of stuff like water are neither singular descriptions denoting individual mereological aggregates, nor plural descriptions denoting multitudes of discrete units or semantically determined atoms.
Gist of Idea
Descriptions of stuff are neither singular aggregates nor plural collections
Source
Henry Laycock (Words without Objects [2006], 5.3)
Book Ref
Laycock,Henry: 'Words without Objects' [OUP 2006], p.153
A Reaction
Laycock makes an excellent case for this claim, and seems to invite a considerable rethink of our basic ontology to match it, one which he ultimately hints at calling 'romantic'. Nice. Conservatives try to force stuff into classical moulds.
| 12794 | Plurals are semantical but not ontological [Laycock] |
| 17694 | Some non-count nouns can be used for counting, as in 'several wines' or 'fewer cheeses' [Laycock] |
| 17695 | Some apparent non-count words can take plural forms, such as 'snows' or 'waters' [Laycock] |
| 17696 | 'Humility is a virtue' has an abstract noun, but 'water is a liquid' has a generic concrete noun [Laycock] |
| 12791 | It is said that proper reference is our intellectual link with the world [Laycock] |
| 12792 | The category of stuff does not suit reference [Laycock] |
| 12818 | We shouldn't think some water retains its identity when it is mixed with air [Laycock] |
| 12795 | Parts must be of the same very general type as the wholes [Laycock] |
| 12797 | If plural variables have 'some values', then non-count variables have 'some value' [Laycock] |
| 12799 | Descriptions of stuff are neither singular aggregates nor plural collections [Laycock] |