In this theoretical background chapter, intensifiers are defined as degree-indicating devices and distinguished from items indicating similar and partly overlapping concepts such as quantification, emphasis, focus, and modality. They are subclassified into the categories of amplifiers (maximizers, boosters) and downtoners (moderators, diminishers, minimizers), with different semantic characteristics and effects. Formally, they are restricted to one-word adverbs, both with and without the -ly suffix. Their typical collocational associations and syntactic behaviour regarding preferred modified targets is dealt with. Their pragmatic distributions in different situational contexts is briefly touched on

As a preliminary to discussing the idea that, for Aristotle, sensibility and intelligence are “measures” of their respective objects, in this chapter I discuss Aristotle’s conception of “measure.” Though the devil is in the details, the fundamental point is tolerably clear. It is that measures for knowing the objects of some genus are prior to – enter into the very idea of – certain particular forms of that genus. The inch, for example, is a measure of length, and it enters into the very idea of certain particular lengths, e.g. one inch, two inches, three inches, and so on. Similarly, if straight is the measure of linear shape, it enters into the very idea of certain particular shapes, e.g. straight and curved. In this way and in this sense, measures are “forms of forms”: that is, what it is to be certain particular quantities or qualities of a genus is to stand in some relation to the “measure” of that genus.

Chapter 8 focuses on Kant’s reaction to the metaphysics of quantity found in Leibnizian and Wolffian rationalism. Leibniz had broad ambitions for a unified theory of all knowledge that subsumed mathematics under metaphysics. Leibniz accordingly sought metaphysical definitions of quality and quantity that in turn supported metaphysical definitions of similarity and equality as identity of quality and quantity, respectively. A criterion of success was that these definitions corresponded to Euclid’s geometrical notions of similarity and equality. This chapter examines Leibniz, Wolff, and Baumgarten’s views of quality and quantity and the contrast between them, which was closely tied to the conditions of their representation and distinct cognition. Kant adopts some of their understanding of the metaphysics of quantity, such as the definitions of similarity and equality as identity of quality and quantity, respectively. At the same time, he radically reforms it. Kant distinguishes between two notions of quantity, quanta and quantitas, and hence draws two contrasts with two corresponding notions of quality: quality versus quantum, and quality versus quantitas. Most importantly, Kant holds that quanta require intuition for their representation. This preserves the general framework of the Leibnizian and Wolffian metaphysics of quantity while radically reforming it at its foundation.

This paper tracks the shift and the continuity in Kant’s views about the relation between mathematics and physics from the early precritical Physical Monadology (1756) up to the middle critical Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) and compares the ways that Kant uses the mathematical ideas of infinite divisibility and the notion of infinitesimal to ground basic metaphysical notions such as contact and corporeal nature.

This chapter provides a typological overview of segmental quantity in Germanic languages. It begins with an overview of basic terminology, different ways of representing quantity, and the effects of different diachronic processes (e.g., open syllable lengthening and degemination) on the occurrence of contrastive segmental quantity. After a presentation of Riad’s (1995) typology of quantity, the chapter describes North and West Germanic language varieties that preserve both vowel and consonant quantity, varieties that retain only consonant quantity and varieties that retain only vowel quantity. Also included are discussions of complementary quantity, syllable cut and evidence that some Germanic varieties no longer have contrastive segmental quantity.