--- by JLS
------ for the GC
WE ALL AGREE THAT GRICE IS OF COURSE perfectly right in having "(Ex)" as identical in meaning to "some (or at least one)" as he has it in WoW:22 -- but we wonder about ANY SENTENCE with that phrase. They all seem ungrammatical or rude.
By rude I mean -- try a google hit for "some" followed by the singular verb. "Some party we had, eh?". Strictly, "Some party we had, eh?".
By ungrammatical I mean that -- you cannot, per logic or grammar -- have
"Some (or at least one)" followed by anything -- "Some (or at least one) student..."
So what he means is naturally:
"Either "some" OR "at least one" is identical in meaning with (Ex)".
But surely, it would be a very recherche logician who is going to study the 'at least one' -- Altas would! and Horn would follow from the linguistic front!
----
Etc.
I would think Grice was just interested in the partiality of the quantification. As when Kant distinguishes Three judgements under the category of "Quantitaet": 'universalis' (all), 'particularis' ('some', or 'at least one') and -- ... Indefinite.
---- Etc.
The best way to understand what Grice left unalysed here would be to revise the idiocies by Strawson in "Introduction to Logical Theory" on 'some' -- AND a thorough close analysis of Warnock's genial "Metaphysics in Logic", in Flew, Conceptual analysis -- originally "Revue de Philosophie" and never reprinted. A jewel in the crown of the Ordinary-Language Philosophy Movement of the Play Group.
--- Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Speaking of my wife, her dad was a pediatrician. Part of his job, therefore, was to compliment mothers on the beauty of thir kids. He had two comments that he used for othern-than-conventionally beautiful kids:
ReplyDeleteThat's some baby!
Now, that's a baby!
Let's speculate on why "some" would come to mean "quite a." I like the idea that of all the parties that could be had, only some of them were like last night's. So, last night's party was not just any old party, it was "some" party. Or not.
I don't know!
ReplyDeleteI'm not even sure I am familiar with the odd ROMAN system that was used for "I" and "O", in the square of opposition, but will find out.
It seems what we want is just a quantifier which, God knows what it is supposed to render.
"Some cops are rude".
"All are".
It's NOT that ALL are, but 'some cops are rude' and "All cops are rude" ARE compatible.
On the other hand, "That was SOME rude cop" may invite yet a different implicature.
"That's SOME baby" is a case of its own. The addition of 'quite', in your gloss, doesn't really add much to it. What is the 'quite' qualifying anyway? "Now THAT'S a baby" is obscure. Echoes of "Atta boy" -- which down here, "Atta girl" we use for dogs and things.
---- (I'm not suggesting your father in law was being rude -- I loved his remarks).
Your analysis, "That was some party we had" -- out of many others that we didn't have but could have had -- and many of which could have been 'less good' than the one we had, or 'more good' --- depending on the intonation, "That was SOME party we had. I'm not sure I'd call it a party at all".
---
In a way, 'some' is better than 'a' because 'a' is short for 'one':
"That's ONE baby!" sounds idiotic (unless: "That's ONE baby -- I thought you had twins -- where's the other?")
"We had ONE hell of a party" can have good or bad implications. There is a DJ from Manchester currently doing the rounds in Buenos Aires. I read his cv in the Buenos Aires Herald. It read: "To his credit, Joe has been organising illegal acid parties in Manchester for some years now". Ah well.
--- Etc.