Or not

--- dedicated to L. J. Kramer
------ by JLS
---------- for the GC

PERHAPS L. J. KRAMER WAS the first, here, and rhetorically, to make systematic use of:

"P. Or not"

Where "P" stands for discourse. His point, rhetorical, is that, whatever the illocutionary force of whatever he was defending, by adding, "or not", he is really NOT adding anything. On the other hand, it may be claimed that there is an extra implicature to the effect that "P" is contigent. That is,

2 + 2 = 4. Or not.

Sounds odd. Because "2 + 2 = 4" is meant as necessary, analytic, a priori, or what have you.

Now. "or not" features in Hamlet's question:

"To be -- or not"

i.e.

"To be or not to be".

Suppose this is a question:

"To be, or not to be?"

The answer, meant by Hamlet is:

either "to be" or "not to be". Hardly, "To be or not to be, that is the answer" _should_ count as an answer.

Cfr.

"Should I see Dylan or not?"

"Are you leaving?"

--- versus "Are you leaving -- or not?"

----

"An irrational agent may (but then again he may not) care whether he is irrational (or not)"

So, the issue is to consider natural occurrences of 'or not' and analyse implicatures.

Recall

Jennings, "The Genealogy of Disjunction".

And Grice's etymological notes:

"or" derives from "other" -- meaning 'second'.

Grice considers the implicature of:

"My wife is in the garden."

"My wife is in the kitchen."

"My wife is in the garden or in the kitchen."

--- BUT _NOT_:

"My wife is in the kitchen -- or not."

-----

Wood considered this in his "Mind" review of a textbook on Logic, cited by Peacocke.

It derives from the problems of 'or'--inclusive. "Or"-inclusive is THE ONLY logical operator in English, qua vernacular. It may be argued that "or"--exclusive can be rendered via implicatum from "or"--inclusive.

It is still a question to provide a derivation of "or not" implicatures in various contexts. Or not.