ABSTRACT
Without blinking an eye, we make comparisons across distinct value categories. Here are some examples. We say, for instance, things like “I am more prudent than you are moral,” “you are more kind than you are brave,” or even “this chair is a better chair than Trump was a president.” This is puzzling since these items are not compared on one dimension. This has prompted many linguists to think that these examples are anomalous in some sense: ungrammatical or non-sensical. Others have claimed they are grammatical and meaningful but only metaphorical or metalinguistic. This chapter argues that the meaningfulness of cross-categorical comparisons is not an illusion. It also criticizes the existent linguistic ideas on how to make these comparisons meaningful. The contours of a new theory of cross-categorical value comparisons are presented, and it is argued that they can be normatively relevant.
