"He wasn't going to bullshit"

KRAMER, in previous post to this blog:

"One of George Carlin’s lines strikes me as especially Gricean. [pasted below]. Grandpa flouts the maxim of quantity with WAY too much information, and the maxim of manner (I guess) by using profanity with a small child. Then Carlin’s flouts the maxim of relevance by defending the Grandfather’s adherence to the maxim of quality when it was his flouting of quantity and manner that needed explanation. (JL may have a different analysis.)"

The text then:

"My grandfather would say: “I'm
going upstairs to fuck your grandmother.” He was
an honest man, and he wasn't going to bullshit
a four-year-old." (Carlin).

I have titled this as I did, because I think it was G. Ward, or someone else, who did write a linguistic essay on 'bullshit'. I never understood the notion, so this may serve as keyword.

"My grandfather would say: “I'm going upstairs to fuck your grandmother.” He was an honest man, and he wasn't going to bullshit a four-year-old."

I have not yet checked your hyperlink. There is something of a mystery about a hyperlink! I would think it may be Attalardo but it may not! Anyway (I'll soon find out, I hope):

"My grandfather would say: “I'm going upstairs to fuck your grandmother.” He was
an honest man, and he wasn't going to bullshit a four-year-old."
---- Well, yes. I would need to know about this Carlin. If this is stand up comedy, I can understand it.
Notes:
"would" -- "My grandfather WOULD say". This is a sort of modal ambiguity. There is like a topic-comment emphasis here. "My grandfather", such a man, whose 'would' utterances merit a report. Followed by:
""I'm going" -- i.e. a strict oratio recta of something the utterer's grandfather WOULD rather than DID (strictly) say. How many times.
-- deletion of "to me"". "My grandfather would say" turns out to be, "would say TO ME", now in the role, "a four year old". The echo of proverb, about "my grandfather would say" thus also flouted.
-- indeed the implicature is short of (it that's the expression), "he has a pervert" almost. It reminds me of this from the other extreme of the spectrum:
-- "I'm going to the bathroom to do number two".
I find myself, as I recollect upon my former self, that I HAVE on occasion said such things. It would seem that a child NEEDS to inform what he is going to the toilet for. There are of course only TWO options provided: number one and/or number two. Why children need this is worth informing I don't know -- but can guess. In any case, the analogies seem to be:

---- Child is engaged in conversation with Adult. Child needs to put an end to that particular exchange, and explains reason, "I need to go to the toilet to do number two".
---- Grandparent is perhaps engaged in conversation with Child. "I'm going upstairs", he volunteers. (We may need to consider the other scenario where, say, Grandpa sees Child near the stairs, and the FIRST thing Grandpa says is, "I'm going upstairs..." -- and here with variants as to whether it is OBVIOUS that the grandparent is going upstairs or not. The oddest scenario would be if they 'meet' in the 'living' room, as it were.

Of course all the reason is where the humour (in part) lies, "He was an honest man"", what follows that is like an expansion on WHY he as an honest man ('he wasn't going to bullshit a four-year old').

Calvin's notion of honesty. "Honesty is the best policy, say I". The idea then is Grice's Quality. The idea seems to be that any other report of Grandpa's behaviour would be 'euphemistic' or a downright lie. Why would be the grandpa otherwise FAIL to be honest? Not saying anything would HARDLY be dishonest (on his part).

In fact, children are usually puzzled by euphemistic naps. I recall I always found the fact that my uncle would spend LONG naps with my aunt -- VERY disturbing. What WERE they doing?

Note that in MY Case, I never conceived of my grandpa and grandma in SEXUAL terms. Hey, I would not even consider my papa and my mama in sexual terms. Why, come to think of it, I wouldn't consider MYSELF in sexual terms. So, it's not just the profanity of 'f*ck'. It's the actual literal import of the verb. It would be just as odd by using a polite variant,

"I am going upstairs to copulate -- with your grandmother". In fact, I was brought up a Catholic. (I later turned into an Anglican, which is what I now am). So, we would NEVER conceive of 'making love' like that. It would be a no-no. Only sex for procreation is allowed in the mind and soul of some infants. Etc.

----

I should consider Kramer's variants, but in another post!

Etc.