"Senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity"

A more detailed commentary on Kramer under "And then":

Kramer:

"I use Natural English, but [Speranza] use[s] Logiclandian English. Let's take the "and" thing. I claim that, in Natural English, "and" can mean and-L or and-S. You say "No, 'and' can only mean and-L and implicate "subsequently," cancellably. I asked whether, if Spanish speakers did not use "y" to mean "y después," one would appropriately translate "and" in certain contexts (viz., those in which it is being used to mean "and-S") as "y después." You said, I think, "no," citing instances in which "and" is being used, in Natural English, to mean and-L (which I say is one of its meanings). But your examples are not instances of the "certain contexts" in which I claim it would be appropriate to translate "and" as "y después.""

---

I see. Sorry about that.

Let me have another example then.

Suppose I were really PAID to translate something to Spanish.

"For yours is the power and the glory".

This won't do, because it's sub-clausal: 'el poder y la gloria'. It doesn't do to add, 'the power first and the glory at a later stage'. We need clausal 'and', with two full propositions. Let me think,

"Do you take this woman to be your lawful wife AND die with her?"

I wouldn't translate that 'and' as "y despues". I don't think 'and then' is MEANT there.

The "She got married and had a child" is so abstract that I cannot see how subsequence is meant. In fact, my example, "All I know is that she had an abortion and became a nun -- Eloise was her name". As a matter of fact, I really don't care what happened first. Both events are pretty 'tragical' per se, and I find that to dwell on the mere temporal sequence of those two important events is to minimise their importance, as it were.

"She stripped and went to bed".

I think in this case I WOULD be inclined to say, 'y despues'. I suppose it depends on the context. As a short story writer, I suppose the more you specify the better. Kennedy may give us a lesson here. Writers use special registers. They are not CONVERSING. They are narrating. But in fact, 'y despues' sounds clumsy in Spanish: "Se desvistio y se metio en la cama". To add, "despues" to "y" is totally, as you say, otiose. But then that was perhaps your point.

"The lone ranger jumped on his horse and ran away". Again I would not use 'despues' after the 'y'.

I think there is a Spanish idiom, 'y vivieron felices y comieron perdices'. Litearlly: 'and they lived happily everafter' (vivieron felices). For some stupid reason, Iberian speakers add, "and they ate partridges" ('y comieron perdices'). It is supposed to be a jocular tag, on the force of the rhyme between 'felices' (happy) and 'perdices' (partridges). I never understood such an abrupt ending to my grandmother's stories.

I mean, 'they lived happily everafter' seemed to be informative enough. The addendum, a-chronological, 'and they ate partridges' confused me. And it still does.

Kramer:

"[Speranza] demote[s] the "then" to a mere tag. I demur. What you treat as the presence or absence of cancellation, I call context."

I think Ms. Korta (oddly, 'corta', in Spanish, means 'short' (feminine)) has a good one on that: "How can what YOU SAY be cancelled?". She finds it a 'contradictio in terminis', I think is the Basque idiom she uses, for that. If you mean, 'and then' by 'and', in context, then the cancellation becomes a bit of a problem. It's like the context-insensitiveness we are after. It's the anonymous letter of Katz. The graffito reading "I provide online translations and speak French". Why would we need a context to figure out something as simple as 'and' MEANING 'and then'?

-----

Kramer goes on:

"In a context in which sequence is expected, "and" "means" and-S. You say "But one has not TROUBLED to utter 'then', so why insist that that is part of the 'sense' of what one has said?" Because that would be otiose, as the word "and" in that context means "and subsequently." It would be redundant in Natural English to say "subsequently" other than for emphasis or clarification."

I see. This in fact relates to the point about 'an X' that I discussed in my initial comment to Kramer -- now in post, titled elsewise. For Grice can explain the use of 'an X' to breach the maxim, be as informative as is required:

"I met a man in the street"

--- when the person the U met was his own father, say.

But then there's

"I've been sitting on a car all day yesterday"

Here, the 'implicatum' is 'inverse', Grice notes. Surely U KNOWS whether this was his car or not. He does NOT care to oversupply with information. So, it's the very same maxim, "Do not be more informative than is required" (the second sub-maxim, rather, strictly, should we need to distinguish, otiosely, between TWO maxims here).

But Grice -- and I may have copied his commentary elsewhere in this blog -- perhaps "Hamburgers and Truth" -- a search for 'oversupply' should do -- is worried about 'oversupply' implicatures. And this is Kramer's point above:

The 'then' CAN BE ADDED, however otiosely, if what U DESIRES some clarification.

"She laughed at him and he slapped her".

Kramer notes:

Adding 'then'

"would be otiose, as the word "and" in that context means "and subsequently." It would be redundant in Natural English to say "subsequently" other than for emphasis or clarification."

Plus, it would somehow break the narrative. I am thinking of Gilda with Rita Hayworth. As it happens, I think he slapped her first, and THEN she laughed (She was pretty hysterical in parts, and the thing is supposed to happen in Buenos Ayres, but I don't recognise the casino.

-- "for emphasis or clarification"

---

OK. So we've dealt with 'clarification'. This is the problem with Grice of 'oversupply'. Plus, people ARE nosey. They want to know. And know. They want information. They don't seem to care if the information is REDUNDANT. I don't know if this is a vicious circle -- i.e. where Television is to blame, or something.

I think that sequencing is somewhat logical:

"I would go to New York, and would pass Bridgeport, Greenwich, Branford, Darien, and Stamford -- but not in that order, necessarily".

The correct order, as it happens is (coming from Branford): Branford, Bridgeport, Darien, Stamford, and Greenwich.

I think an overempathic piece of narration would be:

"I would go to New York and thus pass first Branford, and then Bridgeport, and then Darien, and then Stamford, and then Greenwich".

I cannot see how 'then' in "She was poor and she was honest" can be deemed 'overemphatic'. Oddly, of course that is a different animal, and people, for some reason, use "BUT THEN".

--- So I'll think about it.

Kramer:

"Which brings me to "never," to which you object, for what I believe is a Logiclandian reason. In Natural English, "never" can mean "never before" or "never from now on," or it can mean simply "reliably" (as in "My wife is never on time.")"

But woudn't the latter be more like a hyperbole? Or would not the 'never' rather qualify the whole utterance: "Never rely my wife to be on time". The 'never' seems to apply to YOUR expectations, not to anything she does?

----

Kramer:

"I have never done that", "I will never do that", "I never do that" are all perfectly good Natural English sentences, and all, I contend, use "never" in a slightly different sense."

Mmmm.

"I have never done that". So far. People perhaps should add 'so far'?

"I will never do that". Don't you feel inclined to use the potential mode, so called, 'conditional' mode: "I WOULD never do that"?

"I never do that". This IS tricky in that I tend to avoid the 'historical present'. I think it's better (English?) to just stick to the 'present perfect'? "I've never done that, so far"?

----

For the record, the Iberian variants:

"I have never done that". "No lo hice NUNCA".
"I will never do that." "No lo hare NUNCA"
"I never do that". "No lo hago nunca".

I feel I want to translate your present-perfect "have never done that" by the preterite, "no lo hice nunca". To stick to the present-perfect in Iberian here seems to project the wrong implicatum: "No lo he hecho nunca".

Strictly, your 'that' is best translated in Iberian by 'eso':

Nunca hice eso.
Nunca hare eso.
Nunca hago eso.

I can't see why I would like to say that 'nunca' has three different senses in the above trio.

---

Kramer:

"So, "I have never had breakfast" is the Natural English translation of Logiclandian English's "I have not had breakfast before now." And "I have not had breakfast since going to sleep last night" is Logiclandian for Natural English's "I haven't had breakfast."

Mmm. Your interpolations of Logiclandian English confuse me slightly. So I'll stick with what you call 'natural' English:

---

"I've never had breakfast".

I wonder why someone would like to say that. I suppose it shows some inability to understand the word 'breakfast'. Surely the utterer HAS eaten. Who cares what you call it? To break the fast is the definitional thing. To say that the U has never had breakfast would entail that the utterer is still fasting (since the day he was born, he claims) which I won't believe.

----

"I haven't had breakfast"

You suggest that this should be 'saturated' to read: 'yet, today'. Perhaps it's too late to complain? In most hotels, breakfast is served, alas, only up to 11 am. "I haven't had breakfast" is usually utterered when you HAVE skipped breakfast, and you are ordering MORE THAN YOU SHOULD (the lunch is on your friend), so you excuse your greediness by adding, "I haven't had breakfast. Sorry".

To which a pedant COULD indeed 'go': "By the look of it, it would seem that you NEVER had breakfast'.

---

To which, the correction, "I don't mean 'ever' -- I mean, today", while clumsy, is not necessarily contradictory.

--- So I'll think about it.

------

Kramer:

"[Speranza] say[s] that "black and white" would be translated as "blanco y negro" in Spanish. You say you are reversing the order; I say you are simply reproducing the meaning. The order never mattered - it was arbitrary, driven probably by euphony. The phrase is what had meaning, as does its translation. There is no "order," because there are no components to order, just an expression that identifies a technology."

Yes. A lot of those idioms are 'fixed' like that. "Safe and sound" (never 'sound and safe'), 'show and tell', never 'tell and show', etc. I suppose they would make a formal logician like Hilbert (a firm exponent of strict commutativity of 'and') cringe, or something.

But in any case, since you were saying that 'and' had TWO senses, 'and-L' and 'and-S' (where "S" stands for subsequent), I would think 'black and white' or 'safe and sound' and 'show and then tell' are still different senses? Since you haven't specified them I would suggest you think, appropriately, that they fall within what you call the logiclandian English 'and-L'.

----

Kramer:

"[Speranza] seem[s] not to like polysemy, but I cannot see why. Polysemy is so efficient. Not to use words variably is to waste their invention. It's evolutionarily stressful, as it makes the language harder to learn. Not going down without a fight..."

Sure. Aptly, 'not' in 'not going down without a fight' is external, and can be nicely cancelled: "Not going down without a fight -- because not going down in the first place".

----

"Polysemy is so efficient. Not to use words variably
is to waste their invention. It's evolutionary
stressful, and it makes the language harder to learn."

Excellent three points.

I think the discrepancy is verbal. As a certain type of anti-Platonist philosopher, I regard 'senses' as too abstract to be true. And I think in a way it co-opts the whole Gricean programme if one is going to have POLYSEMY and implicature. It seems to have been, historically, rather, "Semantic Hypothesis" (alla Cohen) OR "UNIGUITY + implicatura" but not both. As it were.

But I'll think over your points. It is good to be able to expand on what we mean, rather than stick, as I often do (sorry about that) with labels, such as 'sense', which are harmful to me, but not necessarily to others.

At this point, the idea, that we have discussed elsewhere, that of 'truth-condition' (even vis a vis truth-function) may do.

"I haven't had breakfast",

as we know, usually mean,

"Hence my greediness as I order yet another hamburger." But surely the truth-conditions of the latter EXPAND the minimal ones of the rather reticent remark, "I've not had breakfast". Why?

--- Snack?

Is the implicature that if U has NOT had breakfast, but is YET NOT hungry, that he has been 'eating a little snack here and there'? Dunno.

The problem with 'breakfast' is 'breakfast'. The way some Americans use the word, it HAS to include bacon and scrambled eggs. So, a snack does NOT count. But in a less schematic mind set, anything that you eat, and by which you break your initial fast (which starts at 12:00 am, each day) IS a break-fast.

In this second, broader, definition, it's ENTAILED that if you haven't eaten (for a longish period) of time, you are bound to be hungry.

You may object that the remark may have been made at 12:05 am, after an abundant meal.

"I've not had breakfast yet".

In this case, I contend, the utterance is implicature-free. I.e. the cancellation is 'contextual', as Grice has it. It need not be 'explicit'.

----

Kramer's three points in defense of 'polysemy':


1. "Polysemy is so efficient. Not to use words variably
is to waste their invention."

2. "It's evolutionary stressful.

3. "It makes the language harder to learn."

Not sure about that. We may be able to provide samples. "Vyse" won't do. What about 'mean'. "mean", Grice says, is NOT like 'vyse' -- WoW: "Meaning Revisited". He wants to say that

"Those spots mean measles"

and

"His words meant that he is French"

feature 'mean' UNAMBIGUOUSLY. I agree. So let's think of another example. What about 'and' and 'and then'? No. Won't do.

"mouth of a river"?

No. Won't do. This is metaphoric.

----

Kilgariff revised the uses of 'fig.' in the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English and concluded with his essay, "I do not believe in word senses". He was especially irritated by the definition:

horse. 1. quadruped mammal. 2. representation of a horse, as in a panting. "Stubbs's horses".

----

Is this polyemous? We don't think so.

"Quean" and 'queen"? Don't think so.


"gay" and "Gay-H"? Don't think so.

"Funny-haha," and 'funny-queer"? Don't think so.

So, I would be ready to grant that polysemy is evolutionarily efficient, provided I find an example that survives!

----

"Polysemy is so efficient. Not to use words variably
is to waste their invention."

--- Part of the problem here is that, if "An X" can be explained, in its (say) three alleged 'senses' as springing from implicatural concerns, most instances of so-called 'figs', as used in dictionaries -- not the fruit -- are metaphors, alla Grice, "You're the cream in my coffee" and so they are IMPLICATURES par excellence.

There is this example that Chapman unburied for us in her _Grice_:

"Larry is between Moe and Shemp"

---- (I think the example goes).

Grice wants to say that there is a primary sense here which is SPATIAL. If what one means is something 'other than spatial' (e.g., "some order of merit", Grice has it) then one would STILL NOT want to say that 'between' is AMBIGUOUS. So that won't do, either.

"help" in -- "He's helping the grass to grow" and "He can't help it". Don't think so.

Etc.

"Polysemy is so efficient. Not to use words variably
is to waste their invention. It's evolutionary
stressful, and it makes the language harder to learn."

I'm not sure that the prolifferation of words makes a language harder to learn. It could be claimed that having to memorise all the different senses of just one lexeme is just as boring.

But then, if Grice and I are right, and the alleged 'senses' are matters of implicatum, then what one needs is a 'rationale' for the figurative extension. That's the way I work, and most textbooks in the history of language work (I recall a cursory ref. to metonymy and metaphor and metaphtonymy even in Petty's newisth "History of the Spanish langauge" (Cambridge University Press).

In English, most polyemic diachronies ARE explained as 'fossilised' (I know Kramer dislikes the ugly phrase) conversational implicata, too.

"Too" as in 'Mary likes it, too" -- I don't think that's polysemous.

Etc.


It's evolutionary
stressful, and it makes the language harder to learn."