Grice's Predikat-Kalkül

We are considering

Carnap's 'pirot' talk as properly formalised as a predikat-kalkuel by Grice in 1973.

He wants to have three variables here:

x
y
z

x is the pirot proper
y is an obble (or object)
which is perceived as FANG or FENG
or as being
FID x
(where FID stands for a property).

In symbols

FID(y,z)

y stands in relation FID to x.

The only way FENGy or FANGy is via x's potching y or z as FENG or FANG. x can later
cotch y or z as feng or fang.

In a previous blog post, I clumsily introduced propositions onto the talk. This is done by Myro (his Rudiments of Logic) but not by me.

If we are going to use predikat-kalkuel propositions (p, q, r, ...) are NOT accepted.

Thus, when it comes to 'v'

FANGy v FENGy

is all we need. No need to postulate 'p v q'.

Etc.

-- In this way

POTCH(x, (FANGy v FENGy))

stands for x's, qua pirot, perceiving y as being fang or feng.

The problem here then gets sort of solved by a bracketing device, and where '(FANGy v FENGy)' stands for what a more tolerant or liberal student (Grice refers to 'liberal studies' at this point) would call a proposition, etc.

Etc.