[FOM] Re: natural language and the F of M

[Peter Apostoli]

HS:
On Frege, the mass/count issue, and its relation to the theory of
number, Bob Hale, for instance, says 'numbers may only properly be
assigned to genuine sortal concepts', reiteratiing Wright's early
thoughts in 1983.

PA:

OK, thanks for the summary (and of course the references). You had me
worried for a moment there, but I think it is safe to say that the begriff
is the referent of a count noun, never of  mass noun. I am glad to see that
Wright supports this standard view. Keeping in mind that the concept script
is not a fully formal uninterpreted language, but rather a fully interpreted
but logically regimented fragment of natural language, this does raise the
problem of how Frege is to exclude German mass nouns as names of begriff. It
seems obvious that Frege is stuck with taking the distinction as informal
part of the conceptual background that forms (putting it anachronistically)
his "metatheory". Perhaps there *is* a basis for criticizing Frege here and
I will re-read Dummett to see if this is his complaint.

My point is that a correct articulation of the mass/count noun distinction
is tantamount to what is lacking in Frege, namely an adequate account of
identity. Once such an account is in place, the mass/count noun distinction
may *be defined* in terms of a distinction of relative identity. The we can
show that the problem of drawing the mass/count noun distinction and Frege's
problem with JC issue from the same source: the formal incompeteness of
formal identity theory.

BTW: I often find that when I  make a blanket claim that two fundamental
problems in Frege are not importantly related I am soon found to be wrong.

Regards,

Peter A.