5

When I hear someone make a statement sans quantifier, I assume a universal quantifier.

For example when I hear someone say "I love dogs", I take that to mean "I love all dogs" and not "I love some dogs".

Is that valid? Does lack of a quantifier imply a universal quantifier?

If someone answers yes or no, I'd appreciate a cite.

Jacinto
  • 10,189
HopDavid
  • 151
  • 7
    You can assume all you like, but language is not formal logic, and it doesn't work to assume it is. When I say "I like dogs" I certainly don't mean "I like every dog that ever was or will be". I probably mean something like "I like most dogs of kinds that I'm likely to encounter" – Colin Fine Mar 05 '16 at 21:33

4 Answers4

3

“I love dogs” is offered as an example, and the opening statement does not restrict the no-quantifier-means-universal-quantifier thesis to the verb love. But everyone will agree that there is no implicit all in the following headline:

‘They might have guns, but we have flowers’: Video shows father reassuring son in wake of Paris attacks

It is not meant all guns or all flowers. But focussing on love now, I can think of lots of examples of the type I love X where people generally, and I most definitely, do not mean I love all X.

Shall we start with sex? When I hear someone say they love sex I take it to mean that sex is an activity they enjoy a lot, but I would never think they enjoy all sex.

I love books. I really do. Not all of them though. When I say I love books I mean reading books is one of my favourite activities, but I am actually quite selective as to the books I read.

And when people say they love dogs they do not necessarily mean they love all dogs. Perhaps some do. But most probably mean they like dogs in general, but would likely not love the neighbour’s dog that kept barking all night, or chasing their cat, etc.

Jacinto
  • 10,189
2

This is a case of a "sticking qualifier". The statement is a general statement, an overly basic sentence. Includes affection, with a specific word as the qualifier (love). Might even be a verb, as basic sentence composition would dictate.

In this case, the person loves dogs in general, but might not like x or y, or most. "Dogs" in this sentence is a singular object of affection, the plural form of the word dog.

Thus, there is no qualifier, but a sticking feeling thanks to generalizing. Akin to saying: I do things.

No, there is no qualifier there, implied or otherwise. One might try to play with undertones, or sarcasm, which would carry extra info, but since these are just characters on a screen, i don't hear it. It is valid, but instead of a qualifier, there is a missing sentence fragment. "I love dogs, in general./mostly"

"Does lack of a quantifier imply a universal quantifier?"

Depends on personal preference. Generally speaking, assume most.

Sakatox
  • 1,547
  • Do you have a reference for "sticking qualifier"? – deadrat Mar 05 '16 at 22:12
  • There's a good reason i put it into quotes - it's an observation, explained. I don't have a reference on me, because i think i was the first to coin it. Or coined it after someone coined it and i don't know of it yet, googled it and have nothing but this and some other, mostly unrelated links. Confidence and careful reasoning backs it, i guess. Feel free to vote down. – Sakatox Mar 05 '16 at 22:23
  • Then your answer is quite confused. You say there's no qualifier "implied or otherwise," but apparently this doesn't apply to "sticking qualifiers." The term qualifier is already taken. It means a classifying or restricting modifier (like quite in my first sentence) and doesn't apply to verbs. The sentence is an unquantified general expression of affection, so much so that a native speaker would be surprised to hear "Really? How many?" (Or "what percentage?") There are some tricky aspects of using a countable noun like this. Compare I like dog and I like dogs. – deadrat Mar 05 '16 at 23:35
  • Be all that as it may. I asked because I thought you were using a term of general reference. I'm not much of a downvoter. – deadrat Mar 05 '16 at 23:36
  • A general statement has an implicit qualifier, which is general. Generalizing. Whatever that means in context, which then, sort of leaks into the actual meaning one wants to pilfer. Hence the sticking. A qualifier where there isn't. – Sakatox Mar 05 '16 at 23:56
  • A general statement has no qualifier at all. That's a statement about grammar. A general statement my be implicitly qualified. That's a statement about semantics. "Sort of leaking into actual meaning [as opposed to virtual meaning?] that wants to be pilfered" carried no meaning for me. So I can't follow the "hence" to sticking, which seems to me to be unrelated to generalizing, leaking, meaning, or pilfering. My main concern, though, was to get a proper reference or a declaration of coinage. I think my work here is done. – deadrat Mar 06 '16 at 00:59
  • So you're completely missing my point, and your work is done. Love the condescension, sans that, the point is: It's a general statement. You get that the statement is general. Which is a qualifier, that isn't anywhere in the statement, just the grammr/"context". Then you try to get the actual meaning from the general statement, and all you get is that it's general. Sticking. No reference, beating a dead horse, and friends - what was the point of your last comment? The fact that you're missing the point proves that you're missing the point, nothing else. – Sakatox Mar 06 '16 at 12:45
  • It's always possible that I'm missing the point. But consider that if your questioner is confused, you may be failing to make your point. Check the transmitter before you blame the receiver. I get that the statement is general, but "which is a qualifier" is a non sequitur. A qualifier is a word. I don't know the difference between a statement's meaning and it's "actual meaning". Do you mean between it's literal meaning and it's implied meaning? Sticking is adhesion. I have no idea why that's apt. Perhaps that's my fault. – deadrat Mar 06 '16 at 18:43
  • When I find something in an answer that I consider wrong, unclear, or misleading, I record that in commentary instead of downvoting. At least one of us and possibly both, after considerable effort, have failed to improve things. My work here is done was an attempt to politely disengage from the futility. Here means in this commentary. You may move the conversation to chat if you wish. – deadrat Mar 06 '16 at 18:50
1

Yes, a null quantifier (without a definite article) is universal (although it may be nuanced to mean 'most' instead instead of 'all' {In 'practical' logic, universals are allowed to have exceptions}).

All instances of a noun have a quantifier, which links to the universal. Although we have universal quantifiers ('all', 'every', 'any'), they need not be stored. 'A cat' is 'one of [every] cat' {not 'one of every of "cat"}. Note that the plural forms are less precise than the singular: '[All] cats have legs and tails' vs 'Every cat has legs and a tail'.

AmI
  • 3,662
  • You're confusing the way you might like English to work with the way most people use it. A person saying 'I love dogs' almost certainly doesn't mean to include ones that have savaged children. – Edwin Ashworth Mar 07 '16 at 00:12
  • No, I am saying that people use fuzzy logic, so our universals implicitly have exceptions; otherwise we'd have very few universals and would have to say things like: I love each and every dog, regardless of circumstances... (PS: we can love the sinner and hate the sin) – AmI Mar 07 '16 at 22:01
  • But I'm saying that ELU is usage-orientated rather than logic-orientated. Answering '... when I hear someone say "I love dogs", I take that to mean "I love all dogs" and not "I love some dogs". Is that valid?' with 'Yes' is incorrect. (PS we're supposed to both love and hate sinners: "You hate all who do evil." (Ps 5:5; NLT) – Edwin Ashworth Mar 07 '16 at 22:15
  • 'Usage' is usage oriented, but memory is logic oriented. It is more economical to store 'I love dogs' and have other knowledge do the patch: (he must mean 'most', not 'all'). My point is that the universal quantifier may really be 'null' in memory; so 'dogs are mammals' is equivalent to 'all dogs are mammals', and is not equivalent to 'most dogs are mammals' (and knowledge of exceptions keeps the brain from blowing up when it learns about 'robot dogs'). (PS: Simultaneous loving and hating is a paradox I'd rather avoid.) – AmI May 10 '16 at 19:10
  • Colin Fine's 'comment' addresses the pragmatics of the situation more clearly. "In 'practical' logic, universals are allowed to have exceptions" sounds like a fudge, and I'd like to see an authority making this claim (or rather, I wouldn't). '[L]anguage is not formal logic, and it doesn't work to assume it is.' – Edwin Ashworth May 10 '16 at 22:16
  • @Colin Fine - Do you think that your brain hears 'I love dogs', analyzes its meaning, and then stores your little essay about 'most dogs that he is likely to encounter'? Or does it just store 'He loves dogs', whose meaning can be inferred anytime later - which is more costly: storage of the data or processing time for the nuance? Fuzzy logic is a more advanced 'formal' logic that can handle meaning in context (think of a thermostat that understands 'hot' and 'cold' not as fixed arbitrary temperatures). – AmI May 27 '16 at 21:09
-3

Many people are imprecise or downright ignorant in their language use. They might say something that literally means one thing when they actually meant something else. For example, a person with poor language skills might say "I didn't get nothing" when he really meant "I didn't get anything". The words that he said literally mean that he DID get something, but that isn't what the person intended it to mean. Similarly, when someone says "I love dogs", those words, taken literally, imply that the person loves all dogs, but that is probably not what the person means. So the answer to your question is that the statement "I love dogs" literally implies that the person loves all dogs, but the person was probably being imprecise in his language usage and probably didn't mean that.

Dan
  • 1