Given the many salutary components of plural logic in relation to mass expressions, this remains a promising area of inquiry.
His conception renders collective intentionality distributive in the sense that the distinctive mark of the phenomena in question is claimed not to be instantiated by individuals together, by individuals-in-relations, by plural subjects or groups, but to the full by each of the individuals involved.
Call the 'part-of' relation in the plural domain 'pp<', in the stuff domain 's<'.
But if we reject mereological universalism and set theoretic realism, then we will have to allow that the truthmaker relation takes a plural argument: Socrates and Plato together are truthmakers for the conjunction, but there is no single entity that is a truthmaker.
(See, however, Dasgupta 2014 for an argument that if grounding is a binary relation then it's plural in both positions).
This system is nice and tidy and is extended so that we can say what we want to about plural and singular entities and their relations.
And obviously, both Islam and Mormonism have a complex relation to the practice of plural marriage.
Suppose they each satisfy the singular predicate F, and have no proper parts which are F. Suppose there is a join relation which combines particular individuals to make plural individuals only (call it a plural join or 'p-join').
For then quantification over dyadic relations can be represented by plural quantification over ordered pairs.
If we adopt a language that allows the formation of plural terms we can unproblematically define a plural identity relation that holds between pluralities of objects too.
Its place in the family genealogy can be examined in relation to other societies, which admit plural concepts called "classificatory" kinship.
