Re: OT: Chinese Philosophy (Was: Re: USAGE: Count and mass nouns)

PHILIPPE CAQUANT scripsit:

> Isn't that a simple case of natlang ambiguity ?
Of course, that's the point of the story.  Because Chinese
is ambiguous in this way, early Chinese analytic philosophy
(to apply modern terminology) had to sort out the question.
See http://cedar.forest.net/hackett/RCCP-whitehorse.htm .

> Don't the Chinese
> themselves understand the difference between "the whole of white horses"
> and "one white horse" ? How would the say "A white horse is a horse"
> ? in case they have to ?
That *is* the default meaning of "bai2 ma3 fei1 ma3".  Gongsun Longzi's point
was that it isn't the only plausible meaning, given the behavior of Chinese
nouns.

(BTW, the characters are U+767D U+99AC U+975E U+99AC.)

--
I am expressing my opinion.  When my            John Cowan
honorable and gallant friend is called,         jcowan@reutershealth.com
he will express his opinion.  This is           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
the process which we call Debate.                   --Winston Churchill

Reply