Grice's English: Ordinary

by JLS
for the GC

Grice's early claim to fame was indeed as a second to J. L. Austin who was popularising the concept, "ordinary language" in various fora -- notably outside Oxford, since it would have been boring to defend ordinary language IN Oxford where it is considered quite ill-manners to diverge from it (unless you should).

On the other hand, cfr.:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-debunking/more-cosmologist-canards-t5285.html

--- "Ordinary language is inadequate when
dealing with abstractions like the beginning of time so
your sense of equivocation is spot on."

--

This reminds me of Austin responding to Dummett. Dummett was arguing that time travel was indeed POSSIBLE. "Well, try it and report back", Austin said.

The online source states:

-- "Ordinary language is inadequate when
dealing with abstractions like the beginning
of time."

--- How would Grice approach the topic? He was fascinated by analytic/synthetic/a priori/a posteriori, and would often question his children's playmates -- aged 8 and 11 -- about stuff.

"Can something be green and red all over?"

----

So I suppose one can imagine a protocol:

"What came before yesterday?
And before that?
Another day.
And before that?
Another day.
Back to when?
-- For ever!

----

--- "abstractions like the beginning
of time" is perhaps slightly confusing.

The beginning of time is not so much an
abstract concept, or abstraction simpliciter -- Duns Scotus's haecceitas is more of an abstract concept --.

Rather I would define the proposition:

"Time began at some point."

'controversial'. Admittedly, to come out of the blue with

"Time did not beging at any point" would sound impolite or a bit authoritative, so one has to be careful. Etc.