This should better read
meanᴺ
meanᴺᴺ
--
i.e. by M. O. R. (Modified Occam's Razor)
mean-N = (i.e. iff) mean-NN
-- I discovered how happy when I told Martinich about it. He said, 'good work if you can get it'.
For he was trying in his _Dialectica_ paper to prove Grice wrong on a couple things.
And Grice _seems_ inconsistent, slightly.
He proposes
mean-nn iff mean-n (i.e. intend, 'mean-to')
So, if it's all a continuum, why bother with the distinction of what he unashamedly called 'senses' in his early "Meaning"?
-- the equation, 'mean-to' is a case of 'natural' meaning, from "Meaning" -- repr. in WoW. Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Austin, like Prichard, love a 'that'-clause, so it all boils down, figuratively, to meaning-that and meaning-to. Not too different from Jason Stanley's knowing-that and knowing-how -- _but_ different!
ReplyDelete