[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
pycyn@hidden.email scripsit: > Not, then, a color (irrelevant) nor a particular type of candy > (relevant but to narrow -- this is largely covered by "I like chocolates"). Not in my English, generally speaking. People who sell candy may have such a convention, but I don't. When I buy candy made from cacao, I am buying "chocolate" (mass noun). > If I only like filled chocolate cases, but not solids nor > bars nor dipped nor hot chocolate nor..., then, while I may like chocolate > cases, I don't really like chocolate (per se, we might say). I think that conclusion is more than doubtful. Twenty years ago, I was comparing food notes with an acquaintance. I liked cheese (but only of varieties A, B, and C). She did not like cheese (except for varieties A, B, and C). Obviously the difference is purely subjective. > But I can't get by with no cases at all, and I can't get by > with only special cases (my birthday, wrapped around my favorite goody, etc.) Agree with the first; disagree with the second. > In general again, lacking some other general law (which I > don't think there is), this dispositional claims requires being put to the > test from time to time -- actually presenting the person with the object -- Again, I don't think so. "Soluble" is plainly dispositional, but salt block X is water-soluble even if it remains in the salt mine forever and is never dissolved at all. If "like" is really dispositional, it would have to apply even when never tested, provided (epistemologically) there is some other reason to think so. E.g. everyone who likes X likes Y, A is known to like X, we can conclude that A likes Y even if he never tries it. -- One art / There is John Cowan <jcowan@hidden.email> No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter