By J. L. Speranza
-- for the Grice Club.
I read from
http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/implication-and-entailment-tf/
that
i. Rainbow implies rain.
----
and I am left wondering.
ii. Whatever.
I mean, is this legal? To say things anonymously like THAT?
Suppose we quote from the larger context:
"Saying (which here includes asking, etc.) may even be replaced by something non-linguistic: ‘By (deliberately) frowning he implied he was angry.’ A non-deliberate frown could only ‘imply’ anger causally, rather as rainbows imply rain."
This sounds like something brilliant, or idiotic, or both. The problem: I NEED 'ad hominem'. What if it's female? "Ad mulierem". I need to KNOW. Or else I don't. What if she is a person who has been criticising Grice for idiotic reasons?
--- Anyway!
I would need to find an AUTHOR who said this. To quote this as "the author" at
http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/implication-and-entailment-tf/
seems illegal, allmost!
Whose copyright is it, if any? Etc. How to QUOTE the thing? Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Could it be this? (Apparently, the Revised Second Edition was by your man A.G.N. Flew.)
ReplyDeleteYou are a genius! And it's totally LEGAL!
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I did consult the thing! It's just that that bookrag thing confused me. So it's Lacey. Oddly, Nicola Lacey wrote a biography on H. L. A. Hart, but I don't think they relate (Nicola Lacey and Colin Lacey). What Flew did to the second edition was possibly VERY otiose). And Colin Lacey is a genius alright.
ReplyDelete