From: margoli@watson.ibm.com (Larry Margolis)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 1992 22:22:18 GMT
News-Software: IBM OS/2 PM RN (NR/2) v0.14 by O. Vishnepolsky and R. Rogers
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In  <1992Sep30.165254.27930@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> In article <1992Sep21.175841.23392@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.ibm.com writes:
> >In  <1992Sep19.214344.20834@rotag.mi.org>  kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
> >> In article <1992Sep19.153927.24145@watson.ibm.com> margoli@watson.IBM.com writes
> >> >In  <1992Sep19.032748.12188@cfctech.cfc.com>  kevin@cfctech.cfc.com (Kevin Darc
> >> >> In article <1992Sep17.113835.19549@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh@galen.med.Vi
> >>
> >> >> >To say something is a "subset" specifically implies that all (entire,
> >> >> >the whole enchilada, etc.) is included.  There is no need to include
> >> >> >the word "all":  it is redundant.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is only "redundant" if one PRESUMES that Nyikos was referring to all
> >> >> Wiccans, as opposed to just the Feminist ones. My point is that there is no
> >> >> justification for that presumption, and I challenge you to justify it.
> >> >
> >> >When he says "Wicca", he *is* referring to the entire Wiccan membership.
> >> >Wicca is the movement as a whole.
> >>
> >> There is no antecedent reason to think so. If I said "subset of Republicans,
> >> like Pro-choice" would you take that as implying that all pro-choicers were
> >> Republican? Somehow I doubt it.
> >
> >Different case, since "Pro-choice" is an adjective.
>
> Poppycock! In the first place, an adjective would be ungrammatical in that
> context.

Poppycock yourself.  Taking it as an adjective, I could assume elision.
If I didn't do that, then I *would* assume exactly what you doubt.

> >> >> >is to say exactly that each and every element of Wicca is contained in
> >> >> >Feminism.
> >> >>
> >> >> Circular reasoning. You are basing your premise (i.e. that by "Wicca", in
> >> >> this context, Nyikos meant ALL Wiccans) on your conclusion (i.e. that the
> >> >> "subset" being referred to comprises ALL Wiccans).
> >> >
> >> >But "Wicca" does refer to all Wiccans.
> >>
> >> Not necessarily, given the context of Nyikos' statement ("subset of Feminism").
> >
> >He gave no indication that we was referring to a subset of *Wicca*, though.
>
> Nor did he exclude the possibility, although YOU did.

The word refers to the religion; as such, it would have to be *explicitly*
qualified if a subset were being referred to.

> >> >> First, you need to give an independent justification for WHY we should presum
> >> >> that when Nyikos said "Wicca", he meant "all Wiccans". Certainly the context
> >> >> of the term implies that he was only referring to the Feminist ones.
> >> >
> >> >But he didn't say Wiccans, which might be ambiguous; he said Wicca, which
> >> >refers to the entire group.
> >>
> >> Standing by itself, or as the lead subject of the sentence, I would agree with
> >> you, Larry. If Nyikos had simply said "Wicca is a subset of Feminism", then it
> >> would have been far less ambiguous. But he didn't. He said "a subset of it,
> >> like Wicca" (where "it" refers to Feminism, of course). In that sentence,
> >> "subset of Feminism" is the lead subject, and "like Wicca" is an appendage.
> >> Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that "Wicca" merely modifies "subset of
> >> Feminism". I see no strict equivalence in the sentence between "Wicca" (the
> >> movement) and "subset of Feminism". I see instead a LOOSE equivalence between
> >> "subset of Feminism" and "Wicca", which could just as easily refer to the
> >> INTERSECTION of the two, as imply that one is a completely-contained subset
> >> of the other.
> >
> >What I see is an example of "a subset of Feminism" being given, namely,
> >Wicca - with a clear implication that Wicca is a subset of Feminism.  I
> >see absolutely nothing to indicate that a *subset* of Wicca was being
> >referred to.
>
> Nor do you see anything to indicate that ALL of Wicca was being referred to,
> Larry. That's my point.

Since he *said* "Wicca", what else are we to assume?

> The single word "Wicca" is not self-quantifying, nor
> should universal quantification -- "all Wiccans" -- be the default.
>
> Take the cliche` "gentlemen prefer blondes" (please :-). Does this imply that
> ALL gentlemen prefer blondes, Larry? Take a simple declaration "birds are
> singing". Does this imply that ALL birds are singing, Larry? "People are like
> that". The list goes on and on. Universal quantification is not the default
> quantification in all instances. I already argued this point with Eric wrt
> the "Humans value human life above animal life" statement and he conceded the
> point. Do you wish to pick up where he left off?

No, since this is unrelated to what we're discussing.  "gentlemen prefer
blondes" is analogous to "Wiccans prefer blondes", and the point I've
been trying to get across to you is that "Wicca" is different than
"Wiccans".

> >> >> If I were to say "women engineers are a subset of engineers", would this not
> >> >> be a true statement?
> >> >
> >> >Yes, but if you were to say "women are a subset of engineers", that would be
> >> >incorrect.
> >>
> >> Now you start to see the light. The phrasing DOES make a difference.
> >>
> >> For your next lesson, try "a subset of engineers are women".
> >>
> >> The lesson after that is "a subset of engineers, like women" (be careful not
> >> to omit the comma in that one :-).
> >
> >Then, for extra credit, try "a subset of engineers, like womankind".  Then
> >compare:
> >   A subset of engineers, like women  |  A subset of engineers, like womankind
> >   A subset of Feminism, like Wiccans |  A subset of Feminism, like Wicca
>
> Wrong, Larry. "Womankind" isn't parallel to "Wicca", it's parallel to
> "Wiccadom" (or whatever the correct term is for the totality of all Wiccans,
> as "Christendom" is for all Christians).

True, but there was no closer word to "women".  Let's try something
that's exactly analogous:
A subset of engineers, like Christians  A subset of engineers, like Christianity
A subset of Feminism, like Wiccans      A subset of Feminism, like Wicca

> He just said "Wicca", which, like "Christianity", ...

OK, would you claim that "A subset of engineers, like Christianity" was
meaningful in any way other than implying that Christianity was a subset
of engineers?

> >> >> If so, then, by your "logic" above, that statement would
> >> >> imply that ALL women were engineers: in Set Theory terms, "the female subset
> >> >> of engineers" is no different than "the Wicca subset of Feminism".
> >> >
> >> >Wrong.  The equivalent would be "the Wiccan subset of feminism".
> >>
> >> Get real. To replace "Wicca" with "Wiccan" in Nyikos' sentence would have
> >> been ungrammatical ("...a subset of it, like Wiccan").
> >
> >Get real yourself.  I was correcting *your* equivalence.
>
> In the equivalence you allegedly "corrected", you just changed "Wicca" to
> "Wiccan", Larry. My only point was that such a simple-minded transformation
> could not have been performed on Nyikos' sentence without rendering it
> ungrammatical. Do you deny this?

I corrected the equivalence, not the grammar.  "The female subset of
engineers" is equivalent to "the Wiccan subset of Feminism".  You keep
getting confused because you're using words that are adjectives, and so
are equivalent to "Wiccan", not "Wicca".  Since I agree with your
statement above that "Wicca" is gramatically equivalent to "Christianity",
perhaps it would help if we substituted that.  You said:
$ >> in Set Theory terms, "the female subset of engineers"
$ >> is no different than "the Christianity subset of Feminism".

And I said:
$ >Wrong.  The equivalent would be "the Christian subset of feminism".

> >In his sentence,
> >he could have said "a subset of Feminism, like the Wiccan subset" to be
> >clear, ...
>
> It also would have been awkward (repeating the word "subset"). Besides,
> there's a subtle semantic difference between "Wiccan subset" and "subset
> composed of Wiccans", just as there's a difference between "Russian spy"
> (who might not be Russian at all) and "a spy who is a Russian" (who might be
> spying for France, or England, or Spain, or ...). So, your suggested phrasing
> would STILL have been problematic, albeit in a different way.

In your spy example, the person could be of Russian origin, or working
for the Russians.  I don't see any such ambiguity with "Wiccan subset".

> >...or "a subset of Feminism, like Wiccans" (which would have been
> >ambiguous, as you have been arguing).
>
> Why is that significantly _more_ ambiguous, Larry, bearing in mind that
> "Wicca" can mean _either_ "the Wiccan belief" or "Wiccans"?

Because just as Christianity refers to the Christian religion or
Christians *collectively*, Wicca refers to the belief or the believers
*as a whole*.  That's where your implicit universal quantifier comes
from.

> >> Besides, it's rather optional whether proper nouns (or noun phrases) need to
> >> be "adjectivized" when they are incorporated into larger proper noun phrases.
> >> Cf. "Stanley Cup", "Commonwealth Games", "Camp David Accords", "Supreme Court
> >> Building", ...
> >
> >What larger noun phrase?
>
> Time for another clue. "Supreme Court" is a noun phrase. "Supreme Court
> Building" is a larger noun phrase,

Time for another clue.  What larger noun phrase was "Wicca" part of?

And you failed to address my comment about "a subset of buildings,
like the Supreme Court".

--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39424 alt.abortion.inequity:4132