Ungriceful

Kramer quotes:
"what he called “how to Linkletterize a joke.” So that no living being of whatever dimness could be left behind in getting it."
--- And then there's explicature!
For Grice, it's all about the IM-plicit. He found the EX-plicit pretty boring. And right he was, too! (I share the sentiment!). The EX-plicit only gets 'sense', as it were, or 'makes' sense, in contrast with the IM-plicit, with trades with important philosophical points, e.g. 'implication', logical -- and so on.
Humour IS Gricean, as Kramer notes. It trades on the IM-plicit. You kill by bringing in Kent Bach's "impliciture" even! (Kent Bach's 'implicitures' are like 'explicatures', only different).
----
"no living being of whatever dimness". Plus, SOME 'legal' conversations. In SOME cases, explicitness is aimed as a protetion against liability, "I, Peter Michael Stefan Hacker, take as my lowal wife..." Etc. This sounds slighly obscene. WHERE else does one have to DROP one's name like that? Surely the reason is to communicate the bride who's she's becoming?
--- For Grice, the 'no need to make it explicit' follows from rationality principles. Only humans (or intelligent people generally -- I'm amusing myself with this loose talk) can IMPLICATE like that. Because only humans have the required reasoning power to REASON the 'implicature' out -- to FIGURE it out.
--- A pirot will implicate. A parrot won't (necessarily). Or not.