A Not So Well Known Gricean

--- by JLS
------ for the GC

---- THANKS TO KRAMER for exegesis. This below I tried to post under thread, "The day after yesterday" and failed.

----

I see Kramer's point now very perfectly. If you allow me, I will use your example, which is much apter and whose gist I know understand.

Rock Hudson.

Surely everybody knew of Rock Hudson. Hey, his career extended for years.

Oddly, Forsythe died the other day.

-----

It is well known that Linda Evans (who played Forsythe's legal wife in "Dynasty" -- yes, I know 'legal' is overinformative and anti-Gricean but let that be) sued Spelling (the father of that 'bitch' (I love her) that goes by her 'daughter', Ms. Spelling) because:

i. Rock Hudson kissed Linda Evans in the mouth (of Linda Evans, that is).

At the time, Linda Evans, who well knew of Rock Hudson (and possibly Rock Hudson, but to what extent can we say to know people?) was possibly unaware that Rock Hudson had AIDS.

----

Kramer writes:

"After all, to Logiclandians, Rock Hudson was a well-known homosexual long before he was known to be a homosexual."

--- I see what you mean now. You were, typically, receding to the meta-level. For I was thinking if it was true that, say, Ackerman, a logician, of Copi, even, knew of Rock Hudson. But you are saying that to a purist of English (I think your Logiclandish is plain pure English as I'll argue in a sec) 'a well-known homosexual' defies syntax.

If it defies syntax, how can it be natural?

I think you are right about the 'brevity' thing. There is also possibly the 'avoid ambiguity' exploited. This is the scope-ambiguity that Grice enjoyed, so it may well be the case that people are exploiting that, all the time -- in fairness to the construction, 'a well-known X', they cannot BUT exploit the ambiguity, because they cannot solve it, either.

I will do a search, "well-known to be a Gricean" and see if I retrieve some hit. I suspect not. (hits involving "The Grice Club" of course won't do).

----

So, I submit that, as PHILOSOPHERS use it, 'a well-known X' has to be taken jocularly because they KNOW that people usually don't know diddly.

There's the good resource to the droppage (or deletion) of the 'logical subject' ('by Y') construction in the passive voice.

"Butler, well-known to be a lesbian".

I wouldn't think I was referring to her fame? After all, I did not 'explicated' (i.e. made it explicit) 'by who'. Only when it's "by a lot of people" indicated, or explicated, can we argue that what U meant was that the "X" was 'famous'. If you check the examples I provide in "A well-known Gricean" (and "the well-known Gricean" -- and 'well-known Gricean" simpliciter --) you'll see that this is usually yet ANOTHER figure of speech which Grice lists as a conversational implicatum: a 'hyperbole' -- a flout of Qualitas, not manner.

Etc.

I should help you to parse "a well-known lesbian":

But there's a problem with Chomsky (or 'the Parser' as I call him -- I am surprised that Grice said that Chomsky was the most intelligent person he ever met -- along with Quine (then he wasn't the most, but you get my drift). What pains me is that Grice says that it is obvious that Chomsky is 'far more intelligent than' "Jesperson". But "Jesperson" does not exist. I want to believe that he did write "JespersEn', in the handwritten notes, and his amanuensis could care less. But "Otto", as I call him familiarly, was perhaps as intelligent as 'The Parser', if not more).

And the problem with Chomsky is that he regards passive and active as pathetically equipolent (He should read Carnap on 'intensional isomorphism'). Thus, for Chomsky:

i. Butler is a lesbian -- this is well-known (by a lot of people -- i.e. it is a fact(oid).

and

ii. A lot of people know it well that Butler is a lesbian.

"mean" 'the same thing' -- hey: possibly 'say' the same thing.

So I would proceed with "ii" because we need to bring onto FOCUS the topic of the thing, not the comment:

"Lots of people know 'it' well that Butler is a lesbian".

parses 'a well-known lesbian such as Butler is'.

Kramer is right that strictly, 'a well-known X' cannot BUT mean, 'well known (by a lot of people, if you mustn't) AND lesbian.

The parsing in Predicate Calculus should be easy enough:

Let "F" stand for 'well-known' (or 'famous' if you must). We are not saying "'b' is F" (in Predicate Calculus, individuals with proper names -- which are capitalised in natural English are ALWAYS provided a lower-case transcript: 'b', for Butler --. (It can cost you your NOT passing Logic 101 if you do capitalise 'butler').

If we symbolise 'Lesbian' or 'lesbian' by "L" -- regardless of the idiosyncrasy of the upper/low case distinction, 'lesbian' is a PREDICATE in logic-land English --, we also want to say, 'b is L'.

Strictly, FMF would be better, as in "men who love men" -- 'lesbian' is too loaded of a word.

So we need to distinguish between

(F(L))b

and Fb & Lb

--- "F" can have various scopes: two at least. While 'well-known' is a predicate ("F") and 'lesbian' is also a predicate ("L"), we can only predicate 'well-known' OF lesbian (as in 'a well-known lesbian') BUT NOT 'lesbian' OF well-known: "a lesbian well-known" doesn't parse.

Of course, Kramer is right that some people care a hoot if things parse or not: they just say them, and without not even intending their addressees will fail to parse them.

-----

The way to go is to provide a 'that'-clause paragraph:

Speranza meant that the well-known lesbian that is Butler should be known even better.

Or

Speranza meant that Butler is well known to be a lesbian.

Or:

Speranza meant that it is well known that Butler is well known.

BUT NOT:

"Speranza said that it is lesbian to well know Butler",

Or stuff.