J. M. Geary writes in reply to R. Paul: >We all know that Sherlock Holmes was a dectective, but, of course, he >wasn't, since he wasn't an actual person and only actual persons can be >detectives. ---- But you said _dectective_. Interestingly, Google.com retrieves 8,020 hits for 'dectective' and it may well be an alternate spelling in the OED, but R. Paul has not checked. R. Paul writes: >I want to learn more about Geary's >theory of abstract predication. Geary replies with a rhetorical question, >isn't the only predication possible encoding? Interestingly, talking of 'predication' (vs. 'attribution') I was reading F. Sibley's posthumous paper, 'Adjectives: attributive and predicative' (Clarendon Press, 2001), and its commentary by C. Lyas in _Essays after Sibley_ (Clarendon, 2001): The manifold complexity of adjectives. It seems Sibley's reflections fit Geary's. Consider 'blue'. 'Blue' is identified by Sibley as the _predicative_ adjective _par excellence_ -- as opposed to 'big'. Whereas if you say (1), you can always disagree, with (2): (1) The car is big. (2) Not really big for a car. I've seen bigger. But you don't seem able to proceed ditto with 'blue' (3) The car is blue. (4) Not really blue for a car. -- or at least C. Lyas says in the excerpt below. Then there's Moore's comparison of 'yellow' and 'good' -- implicating that Aristotle was wrong. What Sibley does -- rehashing a discussion by Geach, and McKay -- is the old 'attributive'-'predicative' distinction (Quine's syncategoremic in _Word and Object_. It does not just pertain to colour words, but interestingly these colour words seem to have epitomised the _predicative_ extreme of the predicative-attributive continuum. More quotes from Lyas below. -- Cheers, JL Lyas writes: "That some distinction is needed is suggested by the fact that from 'this is a big flea' and 'this is a creature' it does not follow that this is a big creature. Whereas from 'this is a red flea' and 'this is a creature' it seems certainly to follow that this is a red creature" (p. 151). ... "Whereas a forged banknote is no banknote, bad food can still be food -- though, as [Jerrold] Levinson points out to me, beyond a certain point of non-nutiritious awfulness it would cease to be so)." ... "Sibley's discussion of these tests is an exemplary exercise of philosophical methodology." ... "Take 'X is a good sponge fisherman', add 'a spnge fisherman is a vertebrate', and you get 'a good sponge fisherman is a good vertebrate'. This is not false but rather odd. ... Let 'aristocratic' be predicative. Then from 'Jarvis Cocker is an aristocratic person' and 'persons are vertebrates' we get the conclusion 'an aristocratic person is an aristocratic vertebrate', which, by the oddity test, makes 'aristocratic' attributive." ... "Most, if not all adjectives, have more than one meaning. 'Damien Hirst is big' cannot be assigned a truth value unless we know whether 'big' means 'physically large' or 'hot on the culltural ephemera market'. Eddy Zemach put the cat among the pigeons when this paper was first delivered by robustly denying that any adjectives were predicative. At the least he will have to explain the oddity of expressions like 'red for a car'." ... "[Sibley's] 'Adjectives, predicative and attributive' ... was subsequently read at ... Cambridge, where the audience included Anscombe and Geach, neither of whom, Sibley told me with some relief on his return, appeared to find anything wrong with it." ... "Sibley hoped that his account, as an account of a distinction, would be vigorously debated whereas, as often was the case, once he had finished, there didn't seem much to debate." ... "Moore's comparison of 'good' with 'yellow' suggests that he clearly thought it predicative. This is no innocent step. For so to categorize 'good' is to take a stand against virtue ethics, of the kind to be found in Aristotle." Further refs include of course Geach's paper -- on 'evil and good' -- and one (cited by Sibley) by McKay, 'Attributive-Predicative'. Sibley also quotes from Aristotle's El.Soph. on 'snub' (concave) as applied to 'nose' only. Sibley writes: "This is crucial when one makes some general claim about an adjective, as Geach does for 'good' and 'bad, for I believe this consideration applies to them. Of course the various meanings of potentially ambiguous words may be quite unrelated, mere accidents of language; or contingently related as 'red' (colour and 'communist'); or related in meaning in varying degrees ranging from 'dry' (applies to wines, wit, and umbrellas), and 'sour' (applied to fruit and faces) to 'intelligent' (applied to men and actions) and 'healthy' (applied to people and diets)." (Sibley, 'Adjectives, Predicative and Attributive', p. 159). ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html