When I hear someone make a statement sans quantifier, I assume a universal quantifier.
For example when I hear someone say "I love dogs", I take that to mean "I love all dogs" and not "I love some dogs".
Is that valid? Does lack of a quantifier imply a universal quantifier?
If someone answers yes or no, I'd appreciate a cite.
“I love dogs” is offered as an example, and the opening statement does not restrict the no-quantifier-means-universal-quantifier thesis to the verb love. But everyone will agree that there is no implicit all in the following headline:
It is not meant all guns or all flowers. But focussing on love now, I can think of lots of examples of the type I love X where people generally, and I most definitely, do not mean I love all X.
Shall we start with sex? When I hear someone say they love sex I take it to mean that sex is an activity they enjoy a lot, but I would never think they enjoy all sex.
I love books. I really do. Not all of them though. When I say I love books I mean reading books is one of my favourite activities, but I am actually quite selective as to the books I read.
And when people say they love dogs they do not necessarily mean they love all dogs. Perhaps some do. But most probably mean they like dogs in general, but would likely not love the neighbour’s dog that kept barking all night, or chasing their cat, etc.
This is a case of a "sticking qualifier". The statement is a general statement, an overly basic sentence. Includes affection, with a specific word as the qualifier (love). Might even be a verb, as basic sentence composition would dictate.
In this case, the person loves dogs in general, but might not like x or y, or most. "Dogs" in this sentence is a singular object of affection, the plural form of the word dog.
Thus, there is no qualifier, but a sticking feeling thanks to generalizing. Akin to saying: I do things.
No, there is no qualifier there, implied or otherwise. One might try to play with undertones, or sarcasm, which would carry extra info, but since these are just characters on a screen, i don't hear it. It is valid, but instead of a qualifier, there is a missing sentence fragment. "I love dogs, in general./mostly"
"Does lack of a quantifier imply a universal quantifier?"
Depends on personal preference. Generally speaking, assume most.
Yes, a null quantifier (without a definite article) is universal (although it may be nuanced to mean 'most' instead instead of 'all' {In 'practical' logic, universals are allowed to have exceptions}).
All instances of a noun have a quantifier, which links to the universal. Although we have universal quantifiers ('all', 'every', 'any'), they need not be stored. 'A cat' is 'one of [every] cat' {not 'one of every of "cat"}. Note that the plural forms are less precise than the singular: '[All] cats have legs and tails' vs 'Every cat has legs and a tail'.
Many people are imprecise or downright ignorant in their language use. They might say something that literally means one thing when they actually meant something else. For example, a person with poor language skills might say "I didn't get nothing" when he really meant "I didn't get anything". The words that he said literally mean that he DID get something, but that isn't what the person intended it to mean. Similarly, when someone says "I love dogs", those words, taken literally, imply that the person loves all dogs, but that is probably not what the person means. So the answer to your question is that the statement "I love dogs" literally implies that the person loves all dogs, but the person was probably being imprecise in his language usage and probably didn't mean that.
