Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2009

No, that very much is not the question.  "King Edward" is the name of
something, but we do not know what that something is.  All we know is
that whatever a King Edward is, it is not a fruit, and therefore not
an apple.  There is no reason to suppose that a King Edward is a human
being.  "Earl Grey" is a tea.  "Prince Albert" is a pipe tobacco.
"King Charles" is a breed of spaniel.  "King Edward" could be
anything.

It follows that "King Edwards" is a plural term, the plural of "King
Edward."  We still don't know what a "King Edward" is, but we know
that it is singular in form and that adding an "s" converts it to the
plural.

Let's tease this idea a little more:

Suppose that there's such a thing as a King Edward radish.  A radish
is not a fruit.  So King Eswards are not a fruit. It follows that King
Edwards cannot be tomatoes, because if they were tomatoes they would
be fruit, which we know they are not.

This being a philosophy text, the point it is making is the point that
I have been making.  We don't know everything we might know about King
Edwards, but we know that theyare not fruit, so they cannot be
apples.  This sort of reasoning is called a "syllogism."  YOu reason
from what you already know to what you can conclude from what you
already know.  If all you know about King Edwards is that they are not
fruit, you can figure out that they are not apples.  But what ARE they
affirmatively?  We have no knowledge beyond that they are not fruit/

You can quickly tie yourself in knots trying to reason through this.
The simple answer to your inquiry is that "King Edwards" is plural but
does not necessarily designate persons.  The rest is for whatever good
it may do you.

The "King Edwards" referred to are potatoes.

Fulio Pen asks about:

I think there is one grammatical error: a comma is missing after
"less formally".  But some people have peculiar ideas about commas.

As explained by someone else, "King Edwards" are King Edward potatoes.

No -- you have misunderstood the point.   King Edwards are potatos
(the most popular variety in England 50 years ago, perhaps still.)  The
question whether King Edwards (or fruit) are singular or plural is not
addressed by this syllogism.  Its point is what logicians call "strict
implication" which applies whether the objects are singular or plural.

He is saying
Were x to be in subcategory b then it/they would  be in general
cagegory a
As x in reality is not in the above mentioned general cagegory
then it cannot be in the above mentioned subcategory

In stead of  "x is not in category a"
there could be written
"It is not the case that x is in cagegory a"
or
" x - category a - no way"
without changing the meaning.

If Concorde were a man then Concorde
would be a human being.
Concorde is not a human being so
Concorde cannot be a man
Instead of " Concorde is not a human being"
you could write
"It is not the case that Concorde is a
human being"
or" Concorde - a human being -no way"