From: kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy)
Subject: Re: Did someone ask about misogynist pro-life loons?
Organization: Who, me???
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:52:54 GMT

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. In the second place, the capitalization of the "P" strongly marks it
as a proper noun. Yes, Larry, "pro-choice" is _usually_ an adjective, but 
not in the sentence above.

Try again?

>> >> >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 sentence is 
ambiguous, Larry, and we usually give authors the benefit of the doubt in 
cases of ambiguity. You failed to give that benefit of the doubt.

>> >> 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. 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?

>> >> 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). The -kind and -dom formations have an
automatic universal quantification: in fact, the only reason these formations
exist is exactly BECAUSE the root terms are ambiguous, in terms of 
quantification.

Larry, I think you're confusing what linguists call "intension" and 
"extension". The intension of a term is the defining characteristics of that
term, whereas the extension is merely the set of concrete instances. Some 
terms have intension, but not extension, e.g. "unicorn". Other terms have
extension, but no particular intension, e.g. "Larry Margolis", which is just
a label for a concrete instance of a person. When you read "Wicca", you appear 
to have understood it purely in an INtensional way, i.e. as referring strictly 
to the Wiccan belief or organizational structure. Certainly, if Nyikos had 
said that the Wiccan belief or organizational structure was a subset of 
Feminism, he would have deserved the criticism he received. But he didn't. He 
just said "Wicca", which, like "Christianity", or "women", can be understood 
in EXtensional ways, i.e. as referring to some indefinite set of concrete 
instances of Wiccans, or Christians or women, respectively. Given the 
EXtensional interpretation, it's perfectly reasonable to surmise that he was 
denoting an _intersection_ between Wicca (the belief or organizational 
structure) and Feminism.

>> >> 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?

>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.

>...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"? I agree that the
sentence above is more ambiguous than what Nyikos actually said, but I don't
think what he said was sufficiently UNambiguous that we should withhold our
benefit of the doubt. The existence of a more ambiguous alternative does not
disambiguate what he actually said.

>> 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, incorporating the previous noun phrase. By 
your "rule", we should always adjectivize proper nouns or noun phrases when 
incorporating them in larger proper noun phrases. In other words, by your 
"rule", the above should read "Stanleyite Cup", "Commonwealthy Games", "Camp 
Davidian Accords" and "Supreme Courtly Building", respectively. Somehow I 
doubt it...

I see nothing wrong with referring to "the Wicca subset of Feminism". It
seems every bit as correct as "the Stanley Cup", IMO. Nor do I think that,
as per your "logic", the term "Stanley Cup" implies that all cups are named 
"Stanley" :-)

								- Kevin
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush