Talk:Quantization (linguistics)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

A few proposed mergers[edit]

I think that the mass/count noun articles would go well under quantization (since both have been suggested for merging anyway), but that would mean that telicity would be merged into this article as well. Since it's a stub right now, I don't see that as much of a problem, as the greater topic in all three pages is quantization. 66.59.249.107 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple not such a great example[edit]

Just as English has a sense of "information" that is countable (see wikt:information), spoiling many a teaching example, "apple" can be used uncountably. It is really not very different from "a grain" vs "grain", except in the relative frequency of the mass senses vs the uncountable senses. Most natural languages confound countable and uncountable in a few ways. For clarity English requires explicit constructions or quantizing or massifying determiners to make explicit what semantic aspect of a word is intended. "A single grain", "a type of grain", "much grain", "a container of grain". It is not hard to imagine a person seeing freight cars full of apples saying: "That's a lot of apple". There may be no English noun that is not both countable and uncountable in some uses. DCDuring (talk) 02:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your broken wikt link, and offer my thank for the information. ☺ -- 81.178.31.210 (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]