The Grice Club

Welcome

The Grice Club

The club for all those whose members have no (other) club.

Is Grice the greatest philosopher that ever lived?

Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

When It

Posted by at

5 comments:

  1. Lawrence J. KramerMarch 10, 2010 at 8:54 AM

    Such a lovely, zen-like post! JL got to "it," realized that he didn't know what "it" was, and stopped. Then, the empty post represents "it," which, as I have argued, doesn't really exist at all.

    I would have gone for "rains it pours" as a completion, raising again the question of how many "it's" are doing the raining and the pouring. I see one rainer/pourer, unlike those two "it's" of "It never rains but it pours." We get to make up a new virtual universe everytime we speak. Is that power or what?

    "When it" ends where is should, like

    I only know two things:

    1. Never tell all that you know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Luigi SperanzaMarch 10, 2010 at 11:58 AM

    Well, obviously, someone SHOULD be able to help me here. What I meant was this song, that was popular back in the 1930s, or something. It was a total nonsequitur, alla

    When it's raining in New York
    it's Christmas time in Tokyo

    -----

    Or when it's raining in New York
    it's midnight in Japan.

    ---- I think.

    So, since I felt I had written an ad-mulierem with "Anita's Adventures in Wonderland", before going to bed, I said, "Nay, I'm goint to drop another post -- just in case someone visits the blog and finds the Anita post as the last and wonders I'm a case. Then I wrote the "When it" but couldn't remember the thing --. The thing must have been saved in the system, and it's only NOW that I find it made it to the list of blog posts.

    But Kramer is right: it is zen like. Actually, when I opened my mailbox this morning (just minutes ago), and started to browse titles of e-mails from recent to less recent, I found, "Reply to "When It"", and I said, "Kramer must have posted on "When It". But no, it was yours truly. Indeed, it doesn't make sense.

    But does, it, on the other hand, a reply like:

    Why are you wearing tennis shoes?
    Because.
    Just because.

    I have heard that often: more often with the 'just'. But when doing the OED I find the "because" simpliciter also is recorded, and makes better sense (is briefer and does not project the unwanted implicature that the thing has no weight).

    But how can "Because" be a sentence? If "Because" is a sentence (in fact the title of my mother's favourite song of April 1902 -- not the Beatles's) one can imagine "when it" as a sentence."

    "I have just decided to use x-words as verbs: to where my dog is to locate it, to when my watch is to specify the time when it was constructed, to why my nose is to provide a detailed physiological explanation, to how my boot is to describe its odd design, to what my mother is to describe my love for her, and to who it is to display the fact that while usually described in neuter terms my hampster is a female.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lawrence J. KramerMarch 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM

    I have heard that often: more often with the 'just'. But when doing the OED I find the "because" simpliciter also is recorded, and makes better sense (is briefer and does not project the unwanted implicature that the thing has no weight)

    I would say that the implicature is not always unwanted. Indeed, I would interpret:

    Just because to mean "I don't know why"

    and

    Because to mean "I don't owe you an explanation even if I have one."

    Cf. Because I'm the mommy as a "reason" for there being no more dessert. ("Just" just wouldn't do there.)

    There was a TV series in the US called "Cagney an Lacy" in the 1980's. It was about two female cops. I remember distinctly reading about the challenges of writing for female authority figures in those heady days of totalitarian feminism, and a big point was made of the characters not using "words of diminishment." The example given was replacing "Let's just go," with "Let's go." In that case, "just" had an unwanted implicature. But one can imagine situations ("I'm just browsing") where diminishment is very much in order.

    The Beatles "Because" is a fabulous song, especially if you can get a version by singers with really good voices. I have one by an a capella group from one of the colleges. The harmonies are wonderful.

    I have just decided to use x-words as verbs: to where my dog is to locate it, to when my watch is to specify the time when it was constructed...

    We computerists say that there is no noun that can't be verbed. Given that x-words can be nouned to give us the why's and wherefore's, and the transitive property of speech-recasting, we can infer that x-words can be verbed, too. Still, I would not when my watch. Whenning a timepiece is like referring to your chin as being at the foot of your face. It works, sort of, but it jars. Better to when the watch's construction and what the watch with the correct time. But then, it's your idiolect, so you can do whatever you want and defend your choices with "because" or "just because," depeding on how deeply you resent the kibbitzing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Luigi SperanzaMarch 10, 2010 at 1:00 PM

    Yes, I think you are right about uses of "when it". In any case, whatever the meaning, --- dear readers of this blog -- feel free then to interpret it as an imperative, a soft one, without the "!" but to read:

    "When it!"

    ----

    You are also right about the "just" in "just because". Note incidentally that, as I used it, an "unwanted implicature" is a nonsequitur. It's a bit like when Grice says,

    "False information is no information" (WoW:RE)

    It strikes me that he should have used the scare quotes, killing the rhetoric:

    "(so-called) false information is no information".

    "False 'information' is no information".

    Similarly,

    "A plastic flower is not a flower"
    "A plastic 'flower' is not, strictly, a 'real' flower".

    I learned about the 'unwanted implicature' in various places:

    Sampson, Making Sense, speaks of unwanted innuendo, which may connect. But the phrase, strictly, I read from one of those reports I would collect when investigating computer-models of Grice. Reichmam, or Reiter, write of

    "unwanted implicature" and make the point that it is _not_ like "an unwanted child".

    "An unwanted child is yet a child, an unwanted 'implicature' is no implicature".

    Etc.

    Yes, the Beatles son, from Abbey Road -- side 2, track 2 -- is a gem, and I would and still often sing it with my cousins in a barbershop quartette (along with my brother): we believe that a barbershop quartette is the ONLY harmony possible: more than 4 is too much, less than 4 is too little.

    I would provide the minimal chording with my ukelele in A.

    But more later.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Luigi SperanzaMarch 10, 2010 at 1:05 PM

    Still, one wonders about the logical form of "Because".

    Why are you wearing tennis shoes?
    Because.

    -- The tone may matter.

    Cfr. any possibly reply to "How do you get a nun pregnant?", or something. The intonation of any possible reply that may follow may yield this or that extra implicature.

    "Because!"

    --- I don't have to tell you.

    "Because" (with sheep's eyes, and shoulder-shaking)

    -- God knows.

    ---

    The "Because" song of the 1910s is totally romantic (it's in a Leonard Hall collection, I have them all).

    The Beatles song is also romantic.

    I forget what the subject or main clause is in the Beatles song that "because the world is round" works as an answer.

    But yes the harmonies are great, and one can hear Paul, John, (in falsetto) and George. It has lots of diminished sevenths, and just it being in a minor chord is a starter. The "Because" of the 1910s is more of a French thing (melodiously) and I believe the thing WAS written by a Frenchman and originally titled, "Parce-que".

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)