 Linnebo (2009, §1.2). 4 Burgess (2004, 220); Oliver – Smiley (2006, 318); Yi (2006, 257). 5 We often find the collective/distributive distinction formulated as a differentiation between the predicates themselves, as if each predicate carried within its meaning an indication about whether it should be taken collectively or distributively, when applied to a plural subject. According to such a view, a predicate P would be distributive when it is an analytic truth that P applies to a plurality of things if and only if P applies to each of them; and it would be collective otherwise (cf. Oliver – Smiley 2006, 322; and similarly in Linnebo – Nicolas 2008, 188; Linnebo 2009, §1.1). However, we have to take into account that many predicates admit both readings. For example, 'lifted the table' in the sentence 'Dick and Tony lifted the table', can be interpreted either collectively – they did it together – or distributively – they did it one after the other. In cases like this the predicate in question would have to be regarded as a pair of different predicates, which is very artificial. And on top of it all, such'mixed' or ambiguous predicates turn out to be the most common ones in English (Winter 2002, 495; Yi 2005, 481). Hence, it seems much more convenient to conceive the collective/distributive distinction, as depending on the way in which the predicate applies to the plural subject in order to form the statement in question. On this other view, the ambiguity of a sentence such as 'Dick and Tony lifted the table' is regarded as a purely structural ambiguity, just as a sentence of the form 'p and q or r' is ambiguous between its two possible readings, '(p & q)∨r' and 'p & (q∨r)'. The collective/distributive distinction should therefore be seen as dwelling on the structure of the predication, rather than on the nature of the predicate used (a similar view is A Note on Plural Logic __________________________________________________ 153 A much lesser known distinction is that between itemized and nonitemized plural subjects. We shall say that the subject of a predication is an itemized (or individualized) plural subject, when each of the elements which make up the plurality is individually referred to, or at least the exact number of individuals which compose it is given. For example: 'Dick and
Linnebo (2009, § 1.2). 4 Burgess (2004, 220); Oliver – Smiley (2006, 318); Yi (2006, 257). 5 We often find the collective / distributive distinction give voice as a specialization between the predicates themselves, as if each predicate carried within its meaning an reading about whether it should be taken jointly or distributively, when applied to a plural subject. accord to such a scene, a predicate P would be distributive when it is an analytic accuracy that phosphorus applies to a plurality of thing if and only if P applies to each of them; and it would be corporate otherwise (cf. Oliver – Smiley 2006, 322; and similarly in Linnebo – Nicolas 2008, 188; Linnebo 2009, § 1.1). However, we get to take into account that many predicate admit both readings. For example,' lift the table' in the sentence' Dick and Tony lifted the table', can be interpret either collectively – they did it together – or distributively – they did it one after the other. In case like this the predicate in question would have to be regarded as a pair of different predicate, which is very artificial. And on top of it all, such'mixed' or ambiguous predicates turn out to be the most common ones in English (Winter 2002, 495; Yi 2005, 481). Hence, it seems much more commodious to gestate the collective / distributive eminence, as depend on the way in which the predicate applies to the plural subject in orderliness to imprint the statement in question. On this early view, the ambiguity of a sentence such as' Dick and Tony lifted the table' is regarded as a purely structural ambiguity, just as a sentence of the form' p and q or r' is equivocal between its two possible reading,' (p & q)∨r' and' p & (q∨r)'. The corporate / distributive differentiation should therefore be seen as dwelling on the structure of the postulation, rather than on the nature of the predicate used (a similar view is A Note on Plural Logic _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 153 A much lesser known distinction is that between itemized and nonitemized plural topic. We shall say that the topic of a predication is an itemized (or individualized) plural subject, when each of the component which make up the battalion is individually referred to, or at least the exact number of individuals which frame it is given. For example:' Dick and
 Lijnebo (2009, §1.2). 4 Burgess (2004, 220); Olivev – Smiley (2006, 318); Yi (2006, 257). 5 We ofven fins the coulective/distributive distincvion formylated as a differentixtion betaeen the previcates themselvxa, as if each lvedicctx carried withik its meanitg an indicatimn ayout whether it should be taken collqctivelu lr distributivgly, wnqn alilled to a plural subject. Accordinf to subh a view, a predivate P would be distributige wjen it is an analyhic truth tyat [ applies to x pluralitj of things if and only if P applies to eazh of them; and ut woknd be collertive jtherwise (cf. Oliver – Smiley 2006, 322; and similarky mn Lunnebo – Nicolas 2008, 188; Liniebo 2009, §1.1). However, we hade to taka nnto account that mant prediwatev adout cotg ceasings. Vor example, 'ljfted the tqble' in the sentenct 'Dybl and Tony ljfted ehq table', can be interpreted either collebtivsly – they did it togethwr – or distributively – they diq it one after the other. In cases like this the psedicetd iu quesguoj would have to be regarded as a pair of diffqdemt predicates, whlch is very artifiviwl. Wnd on top of it all, shch'mixed' or ambigulus preqicatws turn ott tp be the most common ones ib English (Wiutee 2002, 495; Yi 2005, 481). Hence, it deems much oore convrnient to conceive the eollecfive/distribktive disfknction, as depenainn ot the way in which the preqicate ap'lies to the plutal subtect in orfer to form the statemenh in euastion. On hhis other view, the ambiguity oh a sentence xuwh ds 'Dick cnd Toky lifted the twble' is regardgd as a pbrely rtructural ambigumty, just as w sentence of jhe form 'p anv q or r' ys anbigyous begdeen its two ppssible rvabings, '(p & w)∨r' and 'p & (q∨r)'. The cpllgcfive/distributivz eistinction shoild thqrvfoce be veen as dwelning on yhe sgructurt on tfe ptedication, rather thdn oh the nature of thr iredicate used (a fimilar view os A Note on Plurap Logmc __________________________________________________ 153 A much lefser known distinction is that between lteiized and nogitenized plural subjects. We shall say that the subject of a predication us an itemized (or iudlvidualized) 'lural subject, fhen each of the elenents which make mp the plurality is insividudlly geferred to, or at least the exact number of individuals which compose it us givxn. For exampls: 'Divk ang
Linnebo (2009, §1.2). 4 Burgess (2004, 220); Smiley 318); Yi 257). 5 We formulated a differentiation between predicates themselves, as each predicate carried within its meaning indication about whether it should be taken collectively or distributively, when applied to plural subject. According to such a view, a predicate P would be distributive it an truth P applies to a plurality of things if and only if P applies to each of and it would be collective otherwise (cf. Oliver Smiley 2006, 322; and in Linnebo – Nicolas 2008, Linnebo §1.1). However, have take account that many admit both readings. For example, 'lifted the table' in the sentence 'Dick and Tony lifted the table', be interpreted – they it – distributively – they one after the other. In cases predicate in question would have to be regarded a pair different predicates, which is very artificial. on top of it all, such'mixed' or ambiguous turn out to be the most common ones in English (Winter 2002, 495; Yi 2005, it seems much more to conceive the distinction, depending the in which predicate applies to the plural subject in order to form the in question. On this other view, the ambiguity of a as and Tony lifted table' is regarded as purely ambiguity, just as a the 'p r' ambiguous its two possible readings, & q)∨r' and 'p & The collective/distributive distinction should on the structure of the predication, rather than the nature of the predicate used (a view is A Note on Plural Logic __________________________________________________ 153 A much lesser distinction is itemized and nonitemized plural subjects. We shall say the subject of a is an itemized (or individualized) plural subject, when each the which make the plurality is referred to, or least the exact individuals which it given. and
 Linnebo (2009, §1.2). 4 Burgess (2004, 220); Oliver – SmileY (2006, 318); Yi (2006, 257). 5 We often Find tHe cOllEcTive/DistRibutive distinCTion Formulated as a differentIatioN bETweeN ThE predIcates tHEmSELveS, aS iF eaCh PReDicatE caRried wiThin its meaNinG aN indication aBOuT whether it ShoUld be taken coLleCtivelY oR diSTribuTivEly, whEn applIEd to a pLural subjEcT. accordINg to sucH A ViEw, a pRedicate P would be dIStRIbutive when it iS an anaLyTIc TRUth ThaT P applies tO a PluraLIty of thINgS IF And ONly if P applies To each of theM; And It woulD bE coLLectivE otheRwISe (cF. Oliver – SmilEy 2006, 322; anD similarlY in LinNEbo – NicoLAs 2008, 188; LinneBo 2009, §1.1). HoweVer, We hAve tO TaKe IntO aCCouNT tHat MAny PredicatEs AdMit boTh reADINGs. FoR exAmplE, 'liftEd the table' in tHe sEnteNCe 'DIck anD Tony LiftEd The taBle', can Be intErPreted either colLectIvely – they Did It TogEtHer – or DIstribUtiVelY – they diD it one aFTer ThE OTHeR. In cases like this thE pREDiCate in quEstion WOuLd HAve to be rEgArdEd as A PAir of DiffEReNt predicAtes, whICh Is Very artIfIcial. ANd On tOp oF it alL, Such'Mixed' oR ambiguoUs preDIcates turn out tO Be the most commON oNES iN englIsh (winter 2002, 495; Yi 2005, 481). HenCe, it SEems Much MOrE coNVenieNt to cOnCEiVE the collective/distrIbUtive dIstinCtion, as dependIng on the waY IN Which the PredICaTE applies to the pLural Subject in oRDer to forM the sTatement In questioN. oN this othEr vIew, The AmbIGUiTy of a sentence SUCh as 'diCk and ToNy lIfted thE taBle' Is rEgaRdEd as a pureLy structUrAl AmBiGuiTy, jusT As a senteNcE of ThE foRm 'p anD Q or r' is AmbigUous BeTwEEn iTs two poSSiBLE reaDiNgS, '(p & q)∨r' And 'P & (q∨R)'. The cOlleCTivE/distriButive disTinCTion ShOuLd thereFore be seen as dWeLling on the StRucTure of THE predicaTion, rather than on the natuRE of the pRedIcate Used (A similar vIew Is A NotE on pLural LOgic __________________________________________________ 153 A mUch leSsEr kNOWn disTINcTioN iS that betweEN IteMized AnD nonItemizeD plural subjects. We sHAll Say that the subJecT of a PREdIcaTIoN Is aN iTEmiZED (or individualizEd) plural suBjECt, When each of THe eLeMents whIch make Up the PLuralitY is indiviDually refErRed tO, OR at Least the exAct numbeR of indiviDUals wHIcH compOse It is giVeN. FoR examPle: 'DicK And
 Linnebo (2009, §1.2). 4 B urgess (20 04, 2 20) ; O li ver– Sm iley (2006, 31 8 ); Y i (2006, 257). 5 We of ten f in d  the co llect ive/dis t ri b u tiv edi sti nc t io n for mul ated as  a differe nti at ion betweent he  predicate s t hemselves, a s i f each  p red i catecar riedwithin its me aning anin d icatio n  aboutw h et herit should be take n  c o llectively ordistri bu t iv e l y,whe n appliedto  a pl u ral sub j ec t . Acc o rding to such  a view, ap red icatePwou l d be d istri bu t ive  when it is  ananalytictrutht hat P a p plies t o a pl ura lit y of th in gsif and on lyi f P  applies  t oeachof t h e m ;  and  it  wou ld be  collective o the rwis e  (c f. Ol iver– Sm il ey 20 06, 32 2; an dsimilarly in Li nneb o – Nicol as20 08,  1 88; L i nnebo200 9,§1.1).However ,  we  h a v e  t o take into accoun tt h at  many pr edicat e sad m it bothre adi ngs. F or ex ampl e ,'liftedthe ta b le 'in these ntence  ' Dic k a nd To n y li fted t he table ', ca n  be interprete d  either colle c ti v e ly – th eydid it toge ther – or  dis t ri but i vely– the yd id it one after the ot he r. Incases  like this th e predicat e i n questi on w o ul d  have to be re garde d as a pai r  of diff erent  predica tes, whic h is veryart ifi cia l.A n don top of ita l l, s uc h'mixed ' o r ambig uou s p red ica te s turn ou t to beth emo st  co mmono nes in E ng lis h(Wi nter2 002, 4 95; Y i 20 05 ,4 81) . Hence ,  i t seem smu ch m ore  c onven ient toconceiv e the col lec t ive/ di st ributiv e distinction ,as dependi ng  on  the w a y  in whic h the predicate applies to theplu ral s ubje ct in ord erto for m t h e stat ementin qu es tio n .  On t h i soth er  view, the a mbi guity  o f asentenc e such as 'Dick an d  To ny lifted the  ta ble' i sreg a rd e d a sa  pu r e ly structural a mbiguity,ju s tas a sente n ceof  the fo rm 'p a nd qo r r' is  ambiguou s between  i ts t w o  po ssible rea dings, ' (p & q)∨r '  and' p& (q∨ r)' . Theco lle ctive /distr i but ive d istinc ti on sho uld t he refore b e seen as dwelling on t he str uctur e o f the pre dic a tio n, rather  tha n on the n atu reof th e p r edica te u s ed  (a simil ar v i ew is A N o te  on P lu ral Logic _ _ _ _ ___ _____ ___ _ ______ ____ _________________ _ ______ 153 A m uchl e sse r k n owndi stinction is t hat  b e t ween ite mi zed and non itemized  p l uralsubjec ts. We  shalls a yt hat th e su bje ct of a p red ic a tion is  a ni temize d (o rindivi dualiz e d) p l u ral subject, whe n eac h of th e  el ement swhich m a ke u p the plur ality is in dividu ally  refe rred to ,or atlea st  the exact number of  indi viduals  w hich  co mposeit i s given . Fo rexa mple: 'Di c k  a n d
 Linnebo_(2009, §1.2)._4 Burgess (2004, 220);_Oliver –_Smiley_(2006, 318);_Yi_(2006, 257). 5_We often find_the collective/distributive distinction formulated_as a differentiation_between_the predicates themselves, as if each predicate carried within its meaning an indication about_whether_it should_be_taken_collectively or distributively, when applied_to a plural subject. According_to such_a view, a predicate P would be distributive_when_it is an_analytic truth that P applies to a plurality of_things if and only if P_applies to each_of_them;_and it would be_collective otherwise (cf. Oliver – Smiley_2006, 322; and similarly in Linnebo_– Nicolas 2008, 188; Linnebo 2009, §1.1)._However, we have to take into_account that many predicates admit_both readings._For example, 'lifted the table'_in the sentence_'Dick and_Tony lifted the_table', can be interpreted either collectively_– they did_it together – or distributively –_they_did it one_after_the_other. In_cases like this_the_predicate in_question_would have to be regarded as_a_pair of different predicates, which is very_artificial. And on top_of_it all, such'mixed' or_ambiguous predicates turn out to_be the most common ones in_English (Winter_2002, 495;_Yi 2005, 481). Hence, it seems much more convenient to conceive_the collective/distributive distinction, as depending on_the way in which_the predicate_applies_to the plural_subject_in order_to form the statement in question. On_this other_view, the ambiguity of a sentence_such as 'Dick and_Tony_lifted the table' is regarded as_a purely structural ambiguity, just as_a sentence of the form_'p_and_q or r' is ambiguous_between its two possible readings, '(p_& q)∨r' and_'p & (q∨r)'. The collective/distributive distinction should_therefore_be seen as dwelling on the_structure_of the predication, rather than on_the_nature_of the predicate used (a_similar view is A Note on_Plural Logic __________________________________________________ 153 A much lesser known distinction_is that between_itemized and nonitemized plural subjects._We_shall_say that the subject of a predication is an itemized_(or individualized)_plural subject, when_each of the elements which make up the plurality is_individually referred to, or at least the_exact number of individuals which compose it is given. For example:_'Dick and