"So someone isn't at this party" (Grice's gloss)

Grice is considering conversational purposes of moves.

Applying his considerations to A's move,

"So someone isn't at this party"

Grice fails to find them.

For one,

"Marmaduke Bloggs has ALREADY BEEN AGREED

by A and B NOT TO exist, and so Marmaduke

Bloggs (someone) cannot provide a counter-example

to any envisaged thesis that every member

of a certain set (e.g. leading local business men)

is at the party."

----

"Marmaduke Bloggs, being non-existent,

is NOT a member of any set."

----

For the other,

"it is clear that the remark, "So someone

isn't at this party" was advanced on the

strength of the belief that Marmaduke Bloggs

does not exist; so whatever speficiation is

relevant has already been given."


It is at this point that Grice feels the need to provide a conversationally more innocuous case. For if an expression is said to have a putative sense, it should be mightly implausible that the deployment of this sense should be in every conversation in which it is deployed, at the same time objectionable.