Dick:
> >> ## It is the set in sentences where the set members have a  'joint' rather
> >> than 'distributed' relation to the situation - e.g. "The dogs weigh 30
> >> kilos" could be true of them either collectively or individually. Likewise
> >> "My parents met in the cinema", etc etc.
> >
> >That's what I meant by "mass consisting of". By "set" you mean not really
> >"set" in the strict sense (the most notable of whose few properties is
> >cardinality) but rather "membership taken as a collectivity".
> ## I see what you mean. But I suppose there's an easy pragmatic explanation
> for our focus on the membership: that's all that distinguishes one set from
> another. Why should we be interested in the set-hood of the dogs outside
> that are barking, in contrast with their dog-hood?

Quite. But you seem to be saying that the referent is technically a set
but is usually pragmatically reconstrued as a collectivity. I don't see
what is gained by saying that the referent is technically a set.

> >So the referent of plurals is usually "each member of the set" but is
> >sometimes "the collectivity of the set". The latter seems less basic
> >to me, as it's a reading available for some NP coordination, but not
> >for other coordination.
> ##? 

"?" meaning you think the collective reading is available for non-NP
coord, I take it.

> 1)  The {black and white} flag =/= The black flag and the white flag.

=  that flag that is black and that is white

> 2)  He {sang and danced} at the same time =/= *He sang at the same time and
> he danced at the same time.

Yes, but 

    He sang. She danced at the same time.

-- the construal of your ex is due simply to "the same" and not to the
coordination.

> 3) We had to choose between behind the pavilion and inside the lawn-mower
> shed. =/= ....

I would take these PPs to also be NPs. At any rate, by "NP-coordination"
I mean "XP-coordination", where XPs are the things that can ordinarily
occur in NP positions.

> 4) The fact that {he invited her but she refused} says everything.
> etc.

Yes, but this fails to expand because of scope reasons, not because of
a collective reading. For example, take a distributive reading of NP
coordination and put it in a similar embedded context and you won't
get expansion:

   The fact that not only Mr Timeserving-Diplomat but also Joe Scumbag
   received knighthoods is amazing.

> >> >Even here, "the set is numerous", "the team is numerous", sounds odd.
> >> >"Numerosity" seems (in English) to be a property of masses of pluralities
> >> >rather than sets.
> >> ## Because NUMEROUS isn't a clear adjective, presumably.
> >
> >??? We can say:
> >
> >   The flies are numerous
> >   The flies are many
> >   The flies are three
> >
> >-- it's hard to find any acceptable counterparts with a singular subject.
> >Whether or not "numerous" is a clear adjective makes no difference to the
> >fact that it can't be 'predicated' of singular nouns that denote something
> >set-like.
> ## Sorry - I missed your point, which is a good one. However there are
> plenty of other adjectives which can combine with sets as singulars:
> 1) Our team is short of players.
> 2) Our team is larger than yours.
> etc. What's odd is that these particular adjectives (NUMEROUS etc and
> numbers) don't. Numbers are ok when combined with STRONG: three strong,
> etc. Odd.

I still think that in consequence we can't take "numerous dogs" as evidence
for the referent of "dogs" being a set.

--And.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%