# Water doesn't mix with oil [concept]



## magic dragon feeders

Would you answer my question?
A:  Water doesn't mix with oil.
B:  The lion is mammal.
According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of concept is an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.
"Water" and "oil" in A is surely a concept.
"The lion" in B is a generalized version of lions. Do you call it a concept, too?


----------



## reno33

I don't think so. 
A concept is an idea.  I find it difficult to come up with a sentence where "water" or "oil" or "lion" can be considered a concept, even if you stretch the meaning of "concept" to its linguistic limits.

You could use, in some instances. the term "representation" of something   "These blue lines in this painting represent water" but not the "concept" of water.


----------



## owlman5

magic dragon feeders said:


> Would you answer my question?


I will try.



magic dragon feeders said:


> B: The lion is *a *mammal.





magic dragon feeders said:


> "Water" and "oil" in A is surely a concept.


This seems to be a reasonable assumption. After all, that figurative language is used to refer to many different things that are fundamentally incompatible or mutually exclusive.



magic dragon feeders said:


> "The lion" in B is a generalized version of lions. Do you call it a concept, too?


I haven't thought about this before, but I suppose that it may reasonably be called a _concept_.  There may be something inherently wrong in thinking about words as concepts, however.  They certainly do _symbolize_ ideas and also things that exist in the physical world.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you qwlman5. I forgot to write "a" before mammal. Sorry.
  Should I say "the lion" in B is highly conceptual but not a general concept?


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you Rino. I see your idea.
<quote>
A concept is an idea. I find it difficult to come up with a sentence where "water" or "oil" or "lion" can be considered a concept, even if you stretch the meaning of "concept" to its linguistic limits.

---I think, strictly speaking, a concept alone cannot be uttered or written in a discourse or a sentence. In order for it to be used in them, it should be given some kind of determiner.
Some people assume the existence of a zero article as a determiner. According to them, A is: water (with a zero article) doesn't mix with oil (with a zero article).
  Is my explanation wrong or queer?


----------



## owlman5

magic dragon feeders said:


> Thank you owlman5. I forgot to write "a" before mammal. Sorry.


You're welcome, magic dragon feeders.  There really isn't any need to apologize.  It is easy to make small mistakes when you are writing in a foreign language and posting your thoughts online.



magic dragon feeders said:


> Should I say "the lion" in B is highly conceptual but not a general concept?


That might be a safer thing to say. 


magic dragon feeders said:


> According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of concept is an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.


You certainly seem to be making a sincere effort to come up with some specific example for the definition given in MW.  My hesitation in calling _the lion_ a _concept_ stems from the fact that I haven't studied anybody's thoughts on exactly what _a concept_ is supposed to be. I typically think of the word as a general idea of what something is or how something functions.

Perhaps another member will take a look at this thread and offer you a more helpful opinion about exactly what a concept is.  I hope so...


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you very much owlman5.


----------



## Franco-filly

reno33 said:


> I don't think so.
> A concept is an idea. I find it difficult to come up with a sentence where "water" or "oil" or "lion" can be considered a concept, even if you stretch the meaning of "concept" to its linguistic limits.


 I concur.


----------



## PaulQ

magic dragon feeders said:


> According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of concept is an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances.
> "Water" and "oil" in A is surely a concept.
> "The lion" in B is a generalized version of lions. Do you call it a concept, too?


I think you have done well to explain the ideas involved in "a concept". and "The lion" is a concept - it does not refer to any tangible individual.

In "Water is necessary for human life," "water" is a concept in that the word expresses the general and intangible idea of something - as if *all* [the examples of types of] water in the universe were being referred to. The uncountability implies a class. The class is intangible.

The speaker has imagined all examples of "water" and grouped them together. The listener is then left to decide which part or parts of this "water" are meant.

The same is almost, but not quite, true of "the lion" in "The lion has non-retractable claws". "The lion" is a shortened form of "the species *that we know as "lion".*" or "the class of things *that we call "lion".*" It is equally intangible as "species/class" is an abstract. It is therefore a concept.

The difference seems to be between the use/non-use of "*the*", but this is an illusion brought about by the implied, singular countable noun "species/class."

To this extent we can say "The water is unfit to drink" = the class of water *[that I am indicating]* is unfit to drink. Because the particular form of water has been indicated, then "the" is justified as a demonstrative adjective. (Compare "*That *water is unfit to drink")

It is equally possible to say
"Lion have non-retractable claws" - in this example the unqualified "lion" is the same as the unqualified "water", and means "the generality of the class of "lion".
You can also say 
"Lions have non-retractable claws" this is the plural of "A lion has non-retractable claws".
"A lion has non-retractable claws". = "*An* example of a lion has non-retractable claws".
"Lions have non-retractable claws" = "*All *examples of lions have non-retractable claws"


----------



## entangledbank

In 'water doesn't mix with oil', real water is referred to, not the concept of water. The concept is in people's brains, but the water is in glasses and rivers and seas, even if we're speaking of water generically.


----------



## lingobingo

I fail to see what those examples in the OP have to do with the concept of a concept. Where did they come from?


----------



## PaulQ

entangledbank said:


> In 'water doesn't mix with oil', real water is referred to, not the concept of water.


The problem is that although an image of "real water" arises in the mind, the reference does not appear to be to tangible water - but of an example taken from the totality [of the generality] of all waters.


----------



## tunaafi

'Water' is no more a concept in 'Water does not mix with oil' than 'milk' in 'Milk is good for growing children'.  In both cases we are referring to actual liquid stuff.


----------



## Uncle Jack

I don't see that you can tell in a sentence without context whether "water" and "oil" refer to the concepts of water and oil - Plato's ideal forms, as it were - or whether they refer to ordinary physical water, or, indeed, whether any particular type of water or oil is meant.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you Franco-filly, and entangledbank.
<quote>reno33 said:
I don't think so.
A concept is an idea. I find it difficult to come up with a sentence where "water" or "oil" or "lion" can be considered a concept, even if you stretch the meaning of "concept" to its linguistic limits.
I concur.

<quote>
The concept is in people's brains, but the water is in glasses and rivers and seas, even if we're speaking of water generically.

---What I'm taking about is 'water' in "Water doesn't mix with oil", not 'the water'.
  The water is in glasses and rivers and seas is of course real water, not a concept.
  It seems to me a concept is actually used in a sentence such as:
"Water is a clear thin liquid that has no color or taste when it is pure." (Cobuild)
I think you have to think concepts can be used as long as they mean a class.
You have to think something is built in a language system that activates a concept in a sentence only when it means a class, I think. Some people call it a zero article. I'd like your opinion.


----------



## owlman5

magic dragon feeders said:


> It seems to me a concept is actually used in a sentence such as:
> "Water is a clear thin liquid that has no color or taste when it is pure." (Cobuild)


I agree with you that the idea of water is not the physical substance that people refer to when they think of water.



magic dragon feeders said:


> I think you have to think concepts can be used as long as they mean a class.


Perhaps you must have concepts to do any thinking at all, magic dragon feeders.  The ideas in people's minds are not the same thing that physical things are.  Those who study the earth and how it has changed over time tell me that water existed long before any humans were around to think about water and give it names in many different languages. I believe them.



magic dragon feeders said:


> You have to think something is built in a language system that activates a concept in a sentence only when it means a class, I think.


That is an interesting notion.  How many classes exist?  How do we define them?  Is the idea of water inherently different than the idea of blood? We both know that those words refer to different things that have a real physical existence.


----------



## lingobingo

I haven’t really been following this thread, but I just spotted the claim that in the sentence "Water is a clear thin liquid that has no color or taste when it is pure" (a physical description of water as a *substance*) can be thought of as treating *water* as a concept.

It can’t. It’s the very antithesis of a concept. There’s nothing abstract about a substance.


----------



## owlman5

lingobingo said:


> It’s the very antithesis of a concept. There’s nothing abstract about a substance.


But there is something very abstract about the idea of a substance in somebody's mind.  That is certainly not the substance itself although it is arguably not a concept.


----------



## lingobingo

I fear that by magic dragon’s logic, all words must be concepts because they’re not the thing itself!


----------



## Logos_

In certain strictly constructed philosophical systems, idea, notion, and concept all have distinct meanings, whereas in colloquial speech they are thrown around interchangeably. This really is not an English question, but a philosophical one that you should seek to answer with an encyclopedia of philosophy that will be able to unravel for you the complicated usages of these words throughout the history of thought.


----------



## owlman5

lingobingo said:


> I fear that by magic dragon’s logic, all words must be concepts because they’re not the thing itself!


Perhaps they are.  They are certainly words.  When I think about water, I don't rely exclusively on words to do that.  Images of water pop up in my mind. Does anything exist behind those images? Magic dragon feeders proposes that concepts exist when they can can be used to think about classes of things.  Classes, concepts, and ideas all seem very abstract to me.




Logos_ said:


> In certain strictly constructed philosophical systems, idea, notion, and concept all have distinct meanings, whereas in colloquial speech they are thrown around interchangeably. This really is not an English question, but a philosophical one that you should seek to answer with an encyclopedia of philosophy that will be able to unravel for you the complicated usages of these words throughout the history of thought.


 I'm not sure that any encyclopedia can unravel anything about such intangibles, but I _am_ pretty sure that the moderators won't tolerate a rambling discussion of what _concepts_ are.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you PaulQ.
<quote>
"Lion have non-retractable claws" - in this example the unqualified "lion" is the same as the unqualified "water", and means "the generality of the class of "lion".
You can also say
"A lion has non-retractable claws". = "An example of a lion has non-retractable claws".
"Lions have non-retractable claws" = "All examples of lions have non-retractable claws"

---In my opinion, the unqualified "lion" is surely a concept, but isn't used for meaning a class. (It might be used for lion meat). Instead, 'the lion' means the class 'lion'.

I'd like to state about 'the lion' in "The lion is a mammal"?
'The lion' here is a class, not a member of the class 'lion'.
And 'the lion' is a generalization of lions. 'Lions' means real lions, and they are members of the class 'lion'.
  So 'the lion' is a generalization of members of the class 'lion'.

  Now I'm doubtful as to whether I can say 'the lion' here is really a concept, although it does work as a class.
I doubt a concept has something to do with the use of a definite article. So after all, I now think it would be safe, as owlman5 concurs, to say 'the lion' here is highly conceptual but not a concept.
I'd like your opinions. Sorry for my late reply.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

To owlman5
  I read your comments on lingobingo's opinion and Logos' opinion.
  Indeed as Logos says, my post includes something philosophical, but it's also true it includes grammatical matters.
  I think it beneficial to think about activators that make a concept usable in a sentence.
  One of the 2 activators is the one I said in the reply just made, which makes a concept usable in a sentence as long as it means a class. It keeps a concept as it is.
  The other is one that makes a concept into a real substance by adding determiners, in which case a concept changes its form, for example into 'a lion', 'lions' --- 　
But too much for it. Thank you very much owlman5.


----------



## Uncle Jack

magic dragon feeders said:


> "Lion have non-retractable claws" - in this example the unqualified "lion" is the same as the unqualified "water", and means "the generality of the class of "lion".


No, not in English. "Lion" is a countable noun and must have an article or other determiner, even if you are talking about the concept of a lion.

If you want to refer to the concept of a lion (or any other countable noun), it is usual to use the indefinite article (but sometimes the definite article is used). Since this is also the way we refer to non-specific individual examples of the thing, you need context to determine which is meant. Plato discussed the concepts of things, and the example often given is a table. Here is lovely sentence, from What is Plato’s Theory of Forms? (I have added numbers to make it easier):
When did you learn that a table (1) is a table (2)? Chances are it was when you were but a toddler. A parent no doubt told you that this was a table (3) and that was a table (4), so your brain processed the information and created a notion of the table (5).​
(1) is undoubtedly a physical table, and (2) is undoubtedly the concept of a table, yet both use "a table". (3) and (4) probably refers to the concept (with "this" and "that" referring to actual tables) and (5) is certainly the concept. Therefore, we have the concept referred to by "a table" and "the table", we also have a real table referred to as "a table" and we know from experience that "the table" can also be used to refer to a physical table. The only way of telling whether the writer is referring to the concept of a thing or a physical thing is context.

English is the language of pragmatists, and it is generally assumed that nouns refer to things rather than concepts, unless the context is clear. Even when using a noun to represent a group or class of things ("lions" as the group of animals or "the lion" referring to the species), we are still usually talking about real things.

In your original post, you provided no context. As I said in post #14, it is certainly possible to regard "water" and "oil" as concepts, but you haven't given any reason for an ordinary English speaker to do so.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you lingobingo for your comment.
<quote>
  I fear that by magic dragon’s logic, all words must be concepts because they’re not the thing itself!
--- I'm not saying such things in my post.
In my opinion, all things (except proper nouns) are concepts before they are used in a sentence (or a discourse), because they are still in people's minds.
However, when actually used in a sentence, a concept is activated into becoming usable in a sentence, not in people's minds. I think you have to surmise so. In one type of activation, a concept is still a concept and means a class (water→water).
However, in another, a concept is changed into a different thing and it means a real thing, not a concept (lion→a lion, lions).
  It's impossible that 'all words must be concepts".


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you Uncle Jack.
You said?Fmagic dragon feeders said:
"Lion have non-retractable claws" - in this example the unqualified "lion" is the same as the unqualified "water", and means "the generality of the class of "lion".
---No, it's not my words. I just quoted the words.

  You said: "Lion" is a countable noun and must have an article or other determiner, even if you are talking about the concept of a lion.
---I think concepts are ideas. Ideas are in people's minds, and need no determiner. So it can be said that 'lion' is a concept in the stage it's not yet used in a language.

  You said:
  If you want to refer to the concept of a lion (or any other countable noun), it is usual to use the indefinite article (but sometimes the definite article is used).
---I don't think so. When people say, "a lion is a mammal", they do so thinking the sentence is created based on actual observation. The hearer (or the reader), hearing (or reading) the sentence, has an image of a real tangible lion. And after that, he/she tries to surmise the basic properties of other real members of the class 'lion', I think. 'A lion' in "a lion is a mammal" is a real lion (a member of a class), not a concept, I think. I think you refer to 'a lion' here as a substanciation of the concept 'lion'.

  As for 'the lion' in "the lion is a mammal", this sentence isn't based on actual observation. It indeed seems to be a concept because the hearer (or the reader), hearing or reading the sentence, will have an image of the lion species, which is intangible.
  The use of a definite article is rightly used when something has what is/are distinct from it. (For example, in the case of 'the lion', you can say: "The lion preys on the zebra.") The hearer (or the reader), hearing (or reading) it, associate 'the lion' here with the class/species 'lion'.

  Here, I'd like to state my opinion as to concept.
In my opinion, concept is created by discarding individual differences and extracting common traits from seemingly similar things (in other words, by being generalized), and at this stage a name is given to it. By so doing, you can bring order in chaos.
  In order to give more efficient order, as far as I know, humans invented the system of numbers, and after that created the system of articles. When you created the name 'lion', 'lion' was a concept. I usually call it an original concept.

  On the other hand, 'the lion', which is a class and seems like a concept, is a generalization of lions, which are real lions (plural members of a class). However, 'lions' as well as 'a lion' is a substanciation of the concept 'lion'. So 'the lion' is a duplicated generalization. So, what is such complicated manipulation for?
  As aforesaid, the use of a definite article has something to do with associating 'the lion' with the class/species 'lion', in other words, with giving order in hierarchy (creature -- animated thing ---animal -- mammal --lion).

  In conclusion, I think, an original concept is relevant to giving order and naming, while a duplicated concept is to giving more efficient order in hierarchy.
Now I wonder if I can truly call 'the lion' a concept, though it works as a class indeed. Of course, after all the definition of concept determines it, I think. I'd like your opinion.
I've talked too much, so I didn't state my opinion as to Plato's idea and "water doesn't mix with oil".


----------



## Uncle Jack

magic dragon feeders said:


> When you created the name 'lion', 'lion' was a concept. I usually call it an original concept.


I am pretty sure that a real, physical lion came first, and people found a name for it. It is only thousands of years later that some people started wondering whether "lion" could be a concept, as well as a physical thing.

However, in relation to how to use words in the English language to discuss concepts, which is the relevant bit so far as this forum is concerned, you still cannot break the ordinary rules of English grammar, just because you are discussing the concept of a lion rather than a physical lion or the lion as a species. There are four options open to you:

Place "lion" in quotes, as I did in the first paragraph.
Use the indefinite article. This is the most common way of referring to the concept of a thing.
Use the definite article. This may also be used to refer to the concept of a thing.
Use the plural. There is no real reason why the plural should not be used to refer to the concept of a thing, but it isn't, and to do so would be unnecessarily confusing, I think.
Of course, by itself, you cannot tell whether "a lion" means a non-specific individual animal, a representative member of the species, the concept of a lion, or possibly something else. This is nothing unusual in English where many sentences can have several meanings, and we work out which meaning is intended from the context. In the quote in post #24, the first two mentions of "table" have very different meanings, but readers have no difficulty in working out that (1) is a physical table and that (2) refers to the concept of a table.


----------



## tunaafi

Uncle Jack said:


> In the quote in post #24, the first two mentions of "table" have very different meanings, but readers have no difficulty in working out that (1) is a physical table and that (2) refers to the concept of a table.


While I agree with most of what you have written in this thread, I don't agree with the words I have underlined about this sentence: 

_When did you learn that a table (1) is a table (2)? _

I suspect that may native speakers don't have much concept of what a concept is.


----------



## Uncle Jack

tunaafi said:


> I suspect that may native speakers don't have much concept of what a concept is.


Yes, that is probably true, and the discussion of concepts can be difficult. Nevertheless, we only have the English language at our disposal to discuss them, and people do find ways of using it despite the difficulties.

Other branches of philosophy have invented their own language and we do not, for example, need to use the English language to discuss logic (which is sometimes just as well, since the English language is often poorly suited to the task). However, I am not aware of any specialist language for discussing concepts.


----------



## PaulQ

tunaafi said:


> I suspect that may native speakers don't have much concept of what a concept is.


That's probably true but, in the same way that Johnson remarked "I do not have to be a carpenter to say the table wobbles", they are able to see that "I gave him sympathy" and "I gave him milk." are the same construction in which sympathy and milk both represent an amount from an infinite supply - the question is "An infinite supply of what?". 

They are also able to see that taking something from an infinite supply still leaves an infinite supply. 

An infinite supply of sympathy does not physically exist but there is an infinite capacity to produce it. An infinite supply of milk cannot have a physical existence but milk shares the same property as sympathy - it is taken from what, to all intents and purposes, is an infinite supply. 

The uncountable noun does not describe a physical thing - it describes its attributes - it acts similarly to an absolute adjective.

"*Sympathy" *is the total of all things that possess sympathy." *Milk *is the total of all those things that possess "milkness". It is these that define Plato's ideal. Attributes themselves have no physical existence and are thus infinite.

The infinite is a concept.

From this we have the partitive effect of the qualified uncountable noun in which a person receives some sympathy and some milk - a portion of the infinite takes on a tangible (or sensible) form in its sum of attributes and, simultaneously, both are recognised as being part of the infinite which is a concept and a reality: a form of superposition if you will.


----------



## arundhati

I don't think reducing the word concept to any abstract idea is relevant, but we probably all have our own "specifications".
For me a concept needs some of level of structured and dialectic thought, and therefore can't be a "simple" idea, representation, or abstraction of an immaterial element.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you Uncle Jack.
<quote>
I am pretty sure that a real, physical lion came first, and people found a name for it.
---I think people generalized miscellaneous lion-like animals into a concept and gave the name 'lion' to the concept. 
Whether you accept the concept above ('lion') as only one concept of a lion, or also accept 'a lion' and 'the lion' as such is, I think, up to language users.
And if the majority accepts 'a lion' and 'the lion' as concepts of lion, I have to accept, too. It's because I myself am a member of the speech community, and it would be better not to cause unnecessary trouble to other members. So in this forum, I have to accept your idea, and agree with you in that a table (1) is a physical table and that a table (2) refers to the concept of a table.

  <quote>from your post #14
  I don't see that you can tell in a sentence without context whether "water" and "oil" refer to the concepts of water and oil - Plato's ideal forms, as it were - or whether they refer to ordinary physical water, or, indeed, whether any particular type of water or oil is meant.
---"Water does not mix with oil", without no further context, seems and sounds to me to be a general sentence, (I think when 'water' is used as physical water, a qualifier such as 'some', 'a lot of' and 'a litter of' is usually needed, though it might be omitted.) So I think  it can be said 'water' here is a class, and so means a concept.
Similarly when you say, 'Waiter, I'd like water tonight, not wine", the waiter surely brings real water in a jug, but nevertheless it's a concept, because the speaker is interested in making clear the class/type of what he/she wants to drink.


----------



## tunaafi

magic dragon feeders said:


> Similarly when you say, 'Waiter, I'd like water tonight, not wine", the waiter surely brings real water in a jug, but nevertheless it's a concept, because the speaker is interested in making clear the class/type of what he/she wants to drink.


When the customer is clearly referring to the wet stuff, I don't think the idea of 'concept' has any real value.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you tunaaffi.
  <quote>
When the customer is clearly referring to the wt stuff, I don't think the idea of 'concept' has any real value.
--- I agree, but nevertheless it's a concept. The speaker doesn't want any other drink than water. I think concepts, by its nature, have meanings and properties, and are irrelevant to value.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you PaulQ.
  <quote>
  The infinite is a concept.
---Very difficult discussion! I understand that your theory is based on Plato. However, 
when 'the infinite" is assumed as something independent from the recognition subject, the question arises whether the subject really recognizes or can recognize 'the infinite" 
, and how the subject recognizes concepts as such in real life.
  I think the foundation in which all people think about language (including concept) should be the speech community, consisting of language and its users, where the former and the latter interact each other.


----------



## Uncle Jack

magic dragon feeders said:


> I think when 'water' is used as physical water, a qualifier such as 'some', 'a lot of' and 'a litter of' is usually needed, though it might be omitted.


No. With uncountable nouns, determiners and quantifiers are added as necessary, but you cannot take the absence of one to infer that the speaker is referring to the concept. The absence of a determiner or a quantifier is the default position, and all it means is that the speaker or writer has not found cause to add one.


magic dragon feeders said:


> Similarly when you say, 'Waiter, I'd like water tonight, not wine", the waiter surely brings real water in a jug, but nevertheless it's a concept, because the speaker is interested in making clear the class/type of what he/she wants to drink.


Not at all. It would be entirely possible and natural for the speaker to say "Waiter, I'd like Perrier tonight, not wine" (Perrier is a brand of bottled water). No quantifier is needed, yet the speaker has something very specific in mind. The speaker might have something a little less specific in mind when saying "I'd like water tonight", but they are nevertheless surely thinking only of the substance they want in their glass, not of any concept of a thing.

Unless you are a philosopher, there is little need to think in terms of concepts, and most people don't.


----------



## PaulQ

magic dragon feeders said:


> However,
> when 'the infinite" is assumed as something independent from the recognition subject,


The *concept *arises in such sentences as "Would you like some mashed potato?" The actual "potato" itself does not exist. It exists only as an attribute of the food. To this extent, all concepts are attributes - this may extend to the uncountable noun.


----------



## tunaafi

PaulQ said:


> The *concept *arises in such sentences as "Would you like some mashed potato?" The actual "potato" itself does not exist. It exists only as an attribute of the food.


That's a step too far for me. 'Potato' (like 'apple' and other foodstuffs) is a word that, is used as a countable and and uncountable noun. As a countable noun, it refers to the individual fruit/vegetable (and, sometimes, the plant/tree). As an uncountable noun it refers to one or more of these items sliced/mashed/pureed/etc so that we are left with a mass rather than a countable item It can, sometimes, refer to the taste and smell). Both the individual item and the mass _do_ exist, We can see, feel, taste and smell them; we can hear the sound made if we drop them,


----------



## magic dragon feeders

This is a continued version of the previous reply to PaulQ
  If you mean by 'the infinite' "no spatial or temporal limit being recognized" in our speech community, I accept.

I now assume the existence of what I call 'a substantiator', which works in order to make a concept usable in a sentence. In the case of countable nouns, they are usually given a spatial one, which is expressed primarily by an indefinite article <-a(n)> and the sign of plural <-s->.
  And in the case of uncountable nouns, a spatial limit is given to them as a quantifier such as 'some', 'a lot of' and 'a litter of' when they are substance nouns.

  On the other hand, when used as a class, a concept is given no spatial limit, whether it's a countable noun or an uncountable one. Here 'a substantiator' doesn't work, and a concept remains a concept.
  So 'water", having no spatial limit, is a concept, and 'lion' when it's given the name 'lion' is one, too.

  As for 'a lion', when you see a spatial limit in an individual lion, it isn't a concept. Here you also see a temporal limit: a lion dies some day.
However, if you see no spatial limit in 'a lion' (in "a lion is a mammal"), as the lion species, it is concept. Here you might not see a temporal limit: a lion species breeds (multiply themselves).
  But personally I don't know whether or not you can see 'a lion' as a species.

  So with 'the lion'. You see a spatial limit in a particular lion, and don't see it as a concept. However, when you see no spatial nor temporal limit in 'the lion' (in "the lion is a mammal"), as the lion species, it is a concept.

Here, I wonder if a lion should have 3 concepts: 'lion' (when it's given the name 'lion) and 'a lion' as a species and 'the lion' as a species. I'd like your opinion.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

PaulQ said:
The concept arises in such sentences as "Would you like some mashed potato?" The actual "potato" itself does not exist. It exists only as an attribute of the food.
--- I think 'mashed potato' with no article is a concept indeed, but 'some mashed potato' isn't. By adding 'some' you changed a concept into a real thing [a substance].
  I accept the concept 'mashed potato' exists only as an attribute of the food, but 'some mashed potato' isn't a concept, I think.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

tunaafi said
  Both the individual item and the mass do exist, We can see, feel, taste and smell them; we can hear the sound made if we drop them,
--- I totally agree.


----------



## magic dragon feeders

Thank you arundhati.
I think it's impossible for all people to have their own "specifications" as to concept.
I wrote in my first post "according to Merriam-Webster, the definition of concept is an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances." 
So a concept includes abstraction or generalization to a large extent, and there shouldn't be many ones, I think.


----------



## DonnyB

I'm sorry to have to curtail the discussion, but I'm afraid this thread has already drifted into areas of language and linguistic concepts which are well outside what our forum is designed or equipped to handle.  I'm therefore - reluctantly - now closing this thread.  Thanks to everyone who has taken part for their contributions.  DonnyB - moderator.


----------

