This paper takes issue with the predicativist’s identification of proper names and common count nouns. Although Predicativism emerges precisely to account for certain syntactic facts about proper names, namely, that they behave like common count nouns on occasions, it seems clear that proper names and common count nouns have different properties, and this undermines the thesis that proper names are in fact just common count nouns. The predicativist’s strategy to bridge these differences is to postulate an unpronounced determiner to go with names when they appear to function as singular terms, making them effectively a concealed determiner phrase. In this paper I revisit these differences and argue that the predicativist’s strategy is not well justified and worse, it does not help make proper names and common count nouns unified; rather, it makes proper names exceptional as count nouns. I also discuss the referentialist’s take on names qua predicates and make some suggestions about how the syntactic difference between proper names and count nouns should be understood.

本文对谓词论者对专有名词和普通可数名词的识别提出质疑。尽管谓词主义的出现正是为了解释有关专有名称的某些句法事实，即它们有时表现得像普通可数名词，但专有名称和普通可数名词似乎具有不同的属性，这似乎破坏了专有名称在事实上只是普通的可数名词。谓词论者弥合这些差异的策略是假设一个不发音的限定词与名称一起出现，当它们看起来像单数术语时，使它们有效地成为一个隐藏的限定词组。在本文中，我重新审视了这些差异，并认为谓词主义的策略并不合理，更糟糕的是，它无助于使专有名称和普通可数名词统一；相当，它使专有名词成为可数名词。我还讨论了指称论者对作为谓词的名称的看法，并就如何理解专有名称和可数名词之间的句法差异提出了一些建议。