superplural

From super- (prefix meaning ‘greater in quantity than’) +‎ plural.

• (Received Pronunciation) IPA^(key): /ˌs(j)upəːˈplʊəɹ(ə)l/, /-ˈplɔː-/

• Audio (Southern England):

  (file)

• (General American) IPA^(key): /ˌsupəɹˈplʊ(ə)ɹəl/, /-ˈplɜ-/
• Rhymes: -ʊəɹəl
• Hyphenation: su‧per‧plur‧al

superplural (plural superplurals)

1. (grammar, metaphysics (ontology), also attributive) A term, word, etc., that describes a plurality greater than another plural.

   Synonyms: intensive plural, perplural, pluplural, plurally plural, plural-plural

   • , Henry Hanna, “From Kizlar Dagh until the Withdrawal”, in The Pals at Suvla Bay: Being the Record of “D” Company of the 7th Royal Dublin Fusiliers, Dublin: E. Ponsonby , →OCLC, page 124:

     The singular number, I understand, denotes one, and the plural more than one, but to describe the number of flies we have here would require a super-plural. It is not that we have merely 'more than one'—we have myriads of flies.

   • 1935, D L R Lorimer, The Burushaski Language (Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning [Institute for Comparative Research in Human Culture], Series B; 29), volume I (Introduction and Grammar), Oslo, Norway: H[ieronymus and Halvard] Aschehoug & Co., →OCLC, § 41, pages 45 and 454:

     [§ 41, page 45] Some nouns of singular form, already producing plural reactions may be further given plural suffixes; it is convenient to call these forms "super-plurals." […] [page 454] It appears that Super-plurals do not denote a large quantity of matter in one place, but a number of lots of matter in different places, e.g. grain collected or growing on different people's holdings.

   • 2006 November 23, Agustín Rayo, “Beyond Plurals”, in Agustín Rayo, Gabriel Uzquiano, editors, Absolute Generality, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Clarendon Press; New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, →DOI, →ISBN, pages 220–254:

     There are, of course, no super-plural terms or quantifiers in English, but I would like to suggest the relevant semantic category is nonetheless legitimate: super-plural quantifiers are to third-order quantifiers what plural quantifiers are to second-order quantifiers.

   • 2008, David Nicolas, “Mass Nouns and Plural Logic”, in Pauline Jacobson, editor, Linguistics and Philosophy, volume 31, number 2, Dordrecht, South Holland; Norwell, Mass.: Springer, →DOI, →ISSN, →JSTOR, →OCLC, page 225:

     [Agustín] Rayo (2006) develops an alternative that allows for absolutely unrestricted quantification. It consists in using languages that contain not only plural terms, but also terms that are "superplural", "super-superplural", etc. […] A superplural term may refer to several "pluralities". […] As we will show, in order to specify the truth-conditions of sentences containing mass nouns and plurals, we will need to be able to refer to several "pluralities". We will do so using superplural terms.

   • 2008 July, Øystein Linnebo, David Nicolas, “Superplurals in English”, in Michael Clark, editor, Analysis, volume 68, number 3 (New Series number 299), Oxford, Oxfordshire; Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, →ISSN, →JSTOR, →OCLC, page 186:

     A natural question that arises is whether the step from the singular to the plural can be iterated. Are there terms that stand to ordinary plural terms the way ordinary plural terms stand to singular terms? Let's call such terms superplural. A superplural term would thus, loosely speaking, refer to several 'pluralities' at once, much as an ordinary plural term refers to several objects at once. Further, let's call a predicate superplural if it can be predicated of superplural terms.

   • 2013, Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra, “Resemblance Nominalism, Conjunctions and Truthmakers”, in Matthew Soteriou, editor, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , volume CXIII, part I (New Series), London: The Aristotelian Society, →DOI, →ISBN, →ISSN, →JSTOR, footnote 10, page 30:

     The considerations presented in this paper generalize, and should therefore support the view that the truthmaking predicate can take plural predicates of any order (possibly including infinite order), that is, not just superplural arguments, but also super-superplural arguments, and so on. It should also be noted that they also support the view that the truth-making predicate takes plural predicates of 'mixed order'. For instance, what makes (Aristotle exists and Socrates resembles Plato) true is Aristotle together with Socrates and Plato together. 'Aristotle together with Socrates and Plato together' (or 'Aristotle and (Socrates and Plato)') would be a superplural expression of 'mixed order', since it is obtained combining a singular and a first-order plural expression. I am indebted to Øystein Linnebo for alerting me to the points in this footnote.

   • 2016, Alex Oliver, Timothy Smiley, “Plural Descriptions”, in Plural Logic, 2nd edition, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 138:

     Our formalization thus brings out the fact that treating plurally exhaustive description involves dipping one's toes in the murky waters of the superplural. We can avoid total immersion, however, by confining ourselves to the phenomena that are expressible in our mother tongue. Everyone knows that it is not adequate to the apparatus of superplural quantification, since it has no superplural forms of pronouns or common nouns, no 'theys' and 'thems' to follow 'they' and 'them', and no 'thingss' or 'mens' to follow 'things' and 'men'.

   • 2016, Peter Simons, “The Ontology and Logic of Higher-order Multitudes”, in Massimiliano Carrara, Alexandra Arapinis, Friederike Moltmann, editors, Unity & Plurality: Logic, Philosophy, and Linguistics, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 62:

     All ways of talking about higher-order multitudes, where a many is one of a higher many, get into grammatical difficulties because all (or nearly all) languages lack superplurals, or pluplurals. But logically, this is not the point. If it is legitimate to accept that plurals designate collections, including multitudes, in the first place, then similar considerations apply to superplurals, and so to higher-order collections and multitudes at any level.

   • 2020, Ghil‘ad Zuckermann, “Talknology in the Service of the Barngarla Language Reclamation”, in Revivalistics: From the Genesis of Israeli to Language Reclamation in Australia and Beyond, New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, →ISBN, page 227:

     Barngarla has singular, dual, plural and what I call superplural. Consider the following: mína 'eye', mínalbili 'two eyes', mínarri 'eyes' and mínailyarranha 'heaps of eyes'.

   • 2021, Salvatore Florio, Øystein Linnebo, “Superplurals”, in The Many and the One: A Philosophical Study of Plural Logic, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press, →DOI, →ISBN, part III (Plurals and Semantics), page 174:

     Superplurals would permit the formulation of a higher-order version of [Georg] Cantor's theorem; they would help with the elimination of mereology and second-order logic in favor of plural logic; and they could be extensively used in semantics, […] Can the step from the singular to the plural be iterated? Is there such a thing as the superplural that stands to the plural the way the plural stands to the singular? Some examples from natural language suggest an affirmative answer.

• superpluralism
• superplurality

• pluralism (philosophy) on Wikipedia.Wikipedia