By J. L. Speranza
-- for the Grice Club.
I read from
http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/implication-and-entailment-tf/
that
i. Rainbow implies rain.
----
and I am left wondering.
ii. Whatever.
I mean, is this legal? To say things anonymously like THAT?
Suppose we quote from the larger context:
"Saying (which here includes asking, etc.) may even be replaced by something non-linguistic: ‘By (deliberately) frowning he implied he was angry.’ A non-deliberate frown could only ‘imply’ anger causally, rather as rainbows imply rain."
This sounds like something brilliant, or idiotic, or both. The problem: I NEED 'ad hominem'. What if it's female? "Ad mulierem". I need to KNOW. Or else I don't. What if she is a person who has been criticising Grice for idiotic reasons?
--- Anyway!
I would need to find an AUTHOR who said this. To quote this as "the author" at
http://www.bookrags.com/tandf/implication-and-entailment-tf/
seems illegal, allmost!
Whose copyright is it, if any? Etc. How to QUOTE the thing? Etc.
Could it be this? (Apparently, the Revised Second Edition was by your man A.G.N. Flew.)
ReplyDeleteYou are a genius! And it's totally LEGAL!
ReplyDeleteIndeed. I did consult the thing! It's just that that bookrag thing confused me. So it's Lacey. Oddly, Nicola Lacey wrote a biography on H. L. A. Hart, but I don't think they relate (Nicola Lacey and Colin Lacey). What Flew did to the second edition was possibly VERY otiose). And Colin Lacey is a genius alright.
ReplyDelete