Re: [lojban] zo'e interpretation

[And Rosta <arosta@uclan.ac.uk>]

>>> <pycyn@aol.com> 10/01/01 05:11pm >>>
#a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:
#> They don't get stuck to because there is -- deliberately -- no rule to 
#> stick to. I think the remarks in your text are a bit misleading if it is 
#> not said that gricean solutions don't count.
#
#Well, the standard answer is, "If you are going to end up glorking, you might 
#just as well glork at the beginning and save time and trouble, " for gricean 
#analysis is post-rationalized glorking: you figure out what the answer is and 
#then find a way to justify it by gricean conventions.  At least, that is the 
#way Grice worked -- with the additional advantage of occasionally discovering 
#a new convention (some others have claimed this right as well, but their 
#claims are not generally accepted). There are, to be sure, Karttunen logics, 
#which claim to formalize Grice, but they are so suspect that using them would 
#probably rank below skilled glorking. 

Glorking is powerful but also risky. In high-stakes contexts it is safer to reply
on Grice's What Is Said than on What Is Implicated. For that reason my
preference is to make the What Is Said as determinate as possible, while
at the same time acknowledging that in ordinary communication the
What Is Said can be freely mangled and overridden by inferential
pragmatics.

Anyway, I'm not trying to persuade anybody to change the interpretation rule
for zo'e; I'm just pointing out that your document is a little misleading when it
says that no interpretation rule is viable.

--And.