Interestingly, when you speak about a category as a whole, in English, you use the null article (“cats meow” or “I like apples”), whereas in French, you would use the definite article (« les chats miaulent », « j’aime les pommes »).
Both are count nouns, and, in English, a plural count noun takes the null article when it is used with generic or non-specific indefinite reference rather than to denote a contextually identifiable set.
However, in
Cat is divided into numerous breeds.
Cat excludes animals such as dogs and foxes.
Apple excludes such fruits as pears and peaches.
Apple contains numerous cultivated varieties.
No. That is, at best, a highly informal proposition and, at worst, a frivolous disposition masquerading as a definition of «category».
Bare plurals can have generic or kind-related interpretations (the one you refer to as «category»); they do not entail reference to every individual member of the class: a mute cat can't meow, and a rotten apple is unlikely to be liked.
The Obama analogy illustrates reference vs mention, but that distinction is orthogonal to the actual semantic disagreement.
> That is, at best, a highly informal proposition
That’s what it was meant as, yes, since you seemed to be misinterpreting what I was getting at (contents of the category as opposed to meta-commentary about the categorisation). The goal was to clarify, not to publish to an academic journal.
> Bare plurals can have generic or kind-related interpretations (the one you refer to as «category»); they do not entail reference to every individual member of the class: a mute cat can't meow, and a rotten apple is unlikely to be liked.
Irrelevant.
«As a whole» leaves unclear whether your example means the kind itself, its members generally or every member without exception as they are three distinct interpretations. This is what I have remarked on.
«Cats meow» attributes characteristic behaviour to cats generally.
«Dinosaurs are extinct» attributes a property to a kind, making it a better example supporting kind reference.
The latter also establishes that English bare plurals can denote kinds. Their grammatical form does not guarantee that interpretation: «cats entered the dumpster» concerns individual cats on a particular occasion.
> The Obama analogy illustrates reference vs mention, but that distinction is orthogonal to the actual semantic disagreement.
It’s orthogonal to what you have shifted your argument to, but in the context of your original objection, I think it was an apt analogy.