1

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (Page 335) says:

A count noun denotes a class of individuated entities of the same kind. Boy, for example, denotes the class of boys. The individual entities are atomic in the sense that they cannot be divided into smaller parts of the same kind as the whole. A boy consists of parts -- head, arms, legs, etc. -- but these parts are not themselves boys.

So the singular count noun boy denotes a class of individuated entities of the same kind (e.g., the class of boys).

Now, does the plural count noun boys denote a class of individuated entities of the same kind (e.g., the class of boys) as well?

Or does it denote individuated entities of the same kind?

If a plural count noun such as boys doesn't denote a class of boys, does it mean that CGEL's statement about a count noun denoting "a class of individuated entities of the same kind" is applicable to singular count nouns but not to plural count nouns?

JK2
  • 6,553
  • 2
    I'd have thought something like *Boys will be boys* refers to the class collectively. – FumbleFingers Nov 06 '19 at 13:15
  • @FumbleFingers Do you mean that boys refers to the class collectively in your sentence or in any sentence? – JK2 Nov 06 '19 at 15:13
  • 2
    I'm not sure you can truthfully make *any* statement about the usage / syntax / meaning of any specific word in English that applies to *every possible context / "sentence". Obviously if I say I'm going down the pub with the boys, I'm talking about specific* individuals (my "drinking mates"), not the "class" collectively. But there aren't necessarily any specific individuals involved in, say, *Jobs for the boys*, so maybe you should classify that usage differently. – FumbleFingers Nov 06 '19 at 15:36
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers I think I can say the singular boy always denotes the class of boys in any sentence/context. – JK2 Nov 06 '19 at 15:52
  • 2
    I don't know exactly what you mean by "the class of boys" (as opposed to "an instance of that class"). Can you give examples showing how you distinguish these two concepts? – FumbleFingers Nov 06 '19 at 16:52
  • 2
    How about Her eldest boy* is in a boy band.* Do you see both those instances as referring to the "class"? I don't think I do. – FumbleFingers Nov 06 '19 at 16:55
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers Please note that CGEL says the count noun boy denotes the class of boys, which statement I don't believe to be context dependent. Do you happen to believe that the statement depends on context? I'd like your answer to this question first before I give you any of my own analysis and example, because I think it's important to make sure we're on the same page. – JK2 Nov 07 '19 at 00:13
  • 1
    I really don't know where you're coming from here. If I say My daughter's too young to be going out with a boy / boys, that would normally mean exactly the same whether I used singular or plural. Like most nouns, singular boy** can refer to an instance of a class, serving as representative of the class as a whole. What is it that you don't understand? Note that I have no interest in assigning terminology for the sake of it - from my perspective you need to explain what meaning you're after, not what terminology might be used for something. – FumbleFingers Nov 07 '19 at 14:02
  • 1
    @FumbleFingers CGEL's clearly saying that the count noun boy itself denotes the class of boys, regardless of context. That's right. CGEL's making a blanket statement. Then, you're wondering how I (and the authors of CGEL) could not possibly see the fact that the singular count noun boy in My daughter's too young to be going out with a boy refers not to the class but an instance of the class. But I'd say--and so would CGEL's authors--that it's not the singular boy but the NP a boy that refers to an instance, and that the singular boy itself refers to the class even in your example. – JK2 Nov 07 '19 at 15:12
  • BOY is a common noun, unlike other noun forms. When one says BOY, it refers not to the boy John, but boys as a gender or class. That doesn't even mean that BOY in the sentence "He is the boy who helped me", it referred to a class of boys. Even when other common nouns - girl, teacher, doctor - are used, it is the same. //The individual entities are atomic in the sense ... are not themselves boys.// If a boy is considered in parts, that entity stops being there. I think I am able to make sense. – Ram Pillai Nov 09 '19 at 05:23
  • BOYS may be considered again like girls, teachers, doctors. I think we need to accept this as a convention, not viewing that since 'boy' represents a class, we need not use boys. Maximum nouns are common nouns; and this hypothesis may advocate 'we don't need plurals at all' to avoid wrong interpretation. – Ram Pillai Nov 09 '19 at 05:29
  • 1
    @RamPillai In your example, 'boy' does refer to the class of boys. That's why you can't say "He is boy who helped me". You need 'the' to refer to a particular boy. – JK2 Nov 09 '19 at 06:02
  • Yes, @JK2, but similar is the case of most common nouns, isn't it? I think it has become a convention. I remember a rhyme that I learned during childhood, "Smiling girls; cozy boys; come and buy my little toys; Monkeys made of ginger-bread.....etc." Making it "Smiling girl, cozy boy...." makes the usage a little dull; hence the singular/plural convention, esp for common nouns. – Ram Pillai Nov 09 '19 at 06:26
  • 1
    @RamPillai Never am I saying that we need to stop using 'boys'. I'm just asking how to treat 'boys'. – JK2 Nov 09 '19 at 06:54
  • 1
    Take a look at Wierzbicka's paper in Language on "Boys will be boys". – John Lawler Nov 11 '19 at 16:27
  • @JohnLawler I've looked at the abstract, but I'm not sure how the paper is relevant to the question. Would you care to elaborate? – JK2 Nov 12 '19 at 02:25
  • If I say "Girl, I'm in love with you" I'm not referring to the class of entities who are girls, I'm talking directly to one specific girl. – nnnnnn Nov 19 '19 at 07:26
  • @JK2 ''boy' does refer to the class of boys. That's why you can't say "He is boy who helped me". You need 'the' to refer to a particular boy.' Point taken with regard to "the" (or, to generalise, any appropriate determiner). But how do you get that "boy" on its own refers to the class of boys? Or, indeed, to anything at all? – Rosie F Nov 19 '19 at 07:57
  • This covers the same area as the different types of generics. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 26 '23 at 23:51

1 Answers1

1

The authors of the quoted text seem to have used the word class casually, or at least with less care than would be taken with it in, say, a philosophical text.

There are many millions of boys in the world, so one can, uncontroversially, say that the class of boys is large. But one definitely cannot express that by saying either 'Boy is large' or 'Boys are large'. This simple observation is enough to show that the word boy, in either the singular or the plural, does not denote (stand for, refer to) the class of boys.

What the word boy denotes is one instance of that class; boys denotes two or more (possibly all) instances of the class. Sometimes the context makes it clear that the instance(s) denoted are specific; sometimes the word denotes an abstract representative of the class. Speaking about an abstract representative of a class is, in a way, speaking 'about' the class, as it brings out the qualities that define the class. Speaking about a class, in that broad sense of about is, however, not the same as denoting the class itself.

jsw29
  • 8,463
  • Yes, quite. They mean something like BOY denotes subsets from the class (=maximal set of) boys. – Araucaria - Him Nov 19 '19 at 18:21
  • I'm not sure if the culprit is the casual use of class. When a word used in a sentence denotes a concept, could the word always be replaced with the concept in the sentence? I doubt that. // You say the word boy denotes one instance of that class. If so, why can't you say I'm boy.? – JK2 Nov 20 '19 at 05:18
  • @JK2, one can't say 'I'm boy' because that would violate a syntactical rule about the use of articles. That is, however, a separate matter from the denotation (i.e. semantics) of boy; I don't think that the quoted passage from the Cambridge Grammar was intended to imply anything about the use of articles. – jsw29 Nov 20 '19 at 16:43
  • @jsw29 Do you really think such a rule came first? I for one think usage came first, and that any rule is deducted from usage. BTW, can you articulate the "syntactical rule"? – JK2 Nov 21 '19 at 00:59
  • @JK2, sure, all rules of a natural language are articulations of established practices of its speakers. That, however, does not affect the point that the established practices (rules) of article use are a separate matter from the denotation of common nouns. It seems to me that my knowledge of when to use a boy is a combination of my knowledge of how to use a and my knowledge of the meaning of boy, and I thus think that what the Cambridge Grammar says about the denotation of boy is also about its denotation in a boy. Do I understand it correctly that you disagree? – jsw29 Nov 21 '19 at 01:21
  • Actually, I agree with most of what you just said, especially the last part--"what the Cambridge Grammar says about the denotation of boy is also about its denotation in a boy." But I don't know how you could possibly be sure about "the point that the established practices (rules) of article use are a separate matter from the denotation of common nouns." Do you have any proof? – JK2 Nov 21 '19 at 01:35
  • They are separate in that one is a matter of syntax, the other a matter of semantics. 'I'm boy' is syntactically defective, or, as Araucaria said about a similar example in your other recent question, it 'is not well formed and is therefore uninterpretable'. In any event, all this seems rather removed from interpreting what the quoted passage says about referring to a class. – jsw29 Nov 21 '19 at 17:28
  • You're saying the rules of using articles are not a matter of semantics, but isn't the choice between the definite article and the indefinite article a matter of semantics? For example, you need to consider semantics to figure out which article to use in I'm [a/the] boy. Also, even among count nouns, there are some that can do without any article. I'm king is not syntactically defective, because the meaning of king here is different from that of a king in I'm a king. – JK2 Nov 22 '19 at 01:03