The Singular-Plural Distinction in Hindi Generics

Recent work on generics has shown that genericity is not a uniform phenomenon but in volves interaction between the semantics of the noun phrase and the tense-aspect system of a language (see Krifka 1992 for a survey and discussion). This paper focuses on the genericity which is tied to the noun phrase. By this I mean NP's which can serve as arguments to true kind predicates such as extinct. As noted by Krifka. this diagnostic distinguishes the definite singular NP and the bare plural in English from the indefinite singular NP. While the former are truly kind denoting, the latter is not, as shown by the fact that (lc) has only a taxonomic reading: (I) a. The dinosaur is extinct. b. Djoosaurs are extinct. c. A dinosaur is extinct. A question that has remained relatively unexplored is the relationship between the two kind denoting terms, i.e. be tween the definite generic and the bare plural. While there is a considerable degree of overlap between the two, there arc also some striking differences As noted by Carlson (1977), for example, definite generics do not readi I y allow for stage-level interpretations. (2a) has only a non-generic definite reading, while (2b) allows for an indefinite reading. All remaining errors and omjssions are my own.