[INDOLOGY] modality, exclusion and pervasion

[Brendan S. Gillon, Prof.]

Without gainsaying in the least either Patrick's point or Birgit's 
supplement, let me say that `incompatibility' is a modal word in English 
in virtue of the suffix `ability', whereas the Sanskrit word `virodha', 
like the English word `exclusion', is not a modal word. Of course, that 
does not preclude  an author using `virodha' modally, but
linguistic evidence would have to be adduced to establish that.

Furthermore, we must be alert to distinguish two properties not 
co-occurring, two properties never co-occurring and the impossibility of 
two properties co-occurring. The first two non-occurrences are not 
modal, only the last is. As I suggested last time, there is a difference 
between accidental universal generalizations and
law-like universals. To use an example due to Carl Hempel, one can 
imagine that no body of gold in the universe exceeds 1 million metric 
tons. But the universal claim that `every body of gold in the universe 
has a mass less than 1 million metric tons' is an accidental universal 
claim, to be distinguished from the modal claim
that `every body of gold in the universe must be less than 1 million 
metric tons'. I am not aware of a difference was made between accidental 
universal generalizations and necessary universal generalization was 
made or even exploited in Indian philosophical thought.


Best wishes,
Brendan

-- 

Brendan S. Gillon                       email: brendan.gillon at mcgill.ca
Department of Linguistics
McGill University                       tel.:  001 514 398 4868
1085, Avenue Docteur-Penfield
Montreal, Quebec                        fax.:  001 514 398 7088
H3A 1A7  CANADA

webpage: http://webpages.mcgill.ca/staff/group3/bgillo/web/