Have You Stopped Beating Your Husband?

In WoW:xvii Grice complains: "It's always the same old examples? Can philosophers think more creatively?"

Consider his example of a conventional implicature-cum-presupposition.

The presupposition is the old 'suppositio' of the scholastics. The pre- is otiose.

You have stopped beating your husband.
You have NOT stopped beating your husband.

Both "imply", Grice writes, that you do beat your husband.

This was the quaestio subtilissima of Rabelais (as per title of D. P. Henry's book).

Can a chimaera eat secondary intentions.

In the sophisma of the mediaevals it was

Tu non cessas comedere ferrum.

---

Grice concludes that

"The question is a trick -- it captures you". "There's only one way out with these type of abusers: denounce them to the police". Etc.